[joubert]

"That's not a concern, that's open-ended rhetoric based on a publicity stunt. EDIT: One based on a facile misreading of legal principles intended to confuse the uninformed."

Uhm, huh? Let's say Exxon runs for a seat. During its term, 20% of Exxon is purchased by PetroChina. So now the seat is no longer under American control. The person who was elected to Congress is no longer the same person; legally it is still Exxon, but in reality it is a different person since the new shareholder, who is a foreigner, exerts significant influence.

Or is my reasoning bogus?

[Semiapies]

Yes, the reasoning is bogus because Exxon can't take public office. Full stop.

You - and many other people in this discussion - are confusing different legal concepts of "person" as well as "citizen". People like those in the linked story are working to encourage that confusion.

[joubert]

I don't confuse citizenship with legal person at all.

However, I am assuming the company in the article is thinking it stands a chance, as evidenced by it spending dollars to test how far it can go. Otherwise they're pretty stupid, which they may very well be.

[Semiapies]

"I don't confuse citizenship with legal person at all."

OK, but your scenario requires that confusion.

The people in the article are engaging in a stunt. They don't expect or intend to win, and they probably won't spend much or long on the campaign.