First of all, the whole point of the company doing this is that coporations are persons according to the law. I know nothing of citizenship of corporations.
Second, I was replying to the poster talking about presidency, not to the company's bid for congress. The relevant bits for president are No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; The specific word being natural. The basis for corporations being granted personhood the same as a human being is the lack of the word natural in the relevant bits of the US constitution.
Are you sure it's that they "are" persons or just they are considered to have rights similar to the rights a person has? Seems like a pretty important distinction.
Corporations are legal persons. This is not the same a human beings which are natural persons. The defining issues in corporate law came from the anti-slavery amendments to the US constitution. All hinged around the usage of the term natural person vs the term person.
Edit: this means that the generic person covers both natural persons and legal persons
Second, I was replying to the poster talking about presidency, not to the company's bid for congress. The relevant bits for president are No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; The specific word being natural. The basis for corporations being granted personhood the same as a human being is the lack of the word natural in the relevant bits of the US constitution.