What's wrong with this? If a US corporation, owned entirely by Chinese nationals - say not publicly traded same as Cargill - is, per the Citizens United decision, able to financially "participate" in political speech, why cannot the Ghost of Chairman Mao hand out cash on K Street?
I see a distinction without any real difference.
_______________
Image from this link, read the story too, it's ambiguous but editorializes in ways you might or might not agree with, but what's the real difference between an international business force, say IBM imagining itself with an "American Eagle" and flag badging, and Toyota, wanting to buy influence in DC for similar reasons, and being discrete enough to downplay the Rising Sun flag?
You tell me. And then, why not foreign nationals, real people and not fictions for business (and now for political) purposes? It seems xenophobic to not let the Chinese humans have equal spending say in US politics as do US "corporate citizens" owned only by Chinese humans.
What am I missing in all this BS about corporate "personhood" when I don't exist into perpetuity, am taxed differently than IBM, and my corporeal person can be put in the slammer for crime but an incorporeal entity, by its nature cannot, (even if you jug up a majority of the board of directors, something that is too infrequent a happening).