It would be a useful test-case. The rationale behind Citizens United type cases is that citizen's free speech rights can be exercised via corporations. But a foreign-owned corporation is a different kettle of fish.
It's a bit silly for people to keep railing on Citizens United in particular. That was a group of people made a movie knocking a particular politician. The 1st amendment gives them the right to do this and also to organise themselves to do this. But officials tried to stop them because the law limited such activity by organisations.
But there will be lots of real-world cases where the corporation is not a political ginger group. There, the free speech (and free assembly) case becomes much weaker. A fully foreign owned corporation being the most clear case.
No, corporations do not have rights. The owners of the corporation have rights. If the owners are not citizens, then the corporation they own to not have rights only provided to citizens.
Citizens United, as you mentioned. Read it -- it's clear that the logic is that corporations are collections of individuals and as such, they have the same speech protections as individuals themselves.
This is not the reason, actually. Laws can apply to different types of actors, it has been traditionally read that "natural persons" are flesh and blood human beings, while "persons" can include organizations, this interpretation is part of how companies can be legally held responsible for their actions and really _really_ regrettable and complex. It is possible that the 1st Amendment text was written prior to the distinction between "persons" and "natural persons" was clear, and that has been argued - but for the time being all "persons" are afforded free speech, including corporations.
No, the GP was correct. Read the Citizens United decision. The finding was based on the concept that the rights of the people who make up an organization extend to collective action taken by that organization.
The decision had nothing to do with corporations being considered legal persons or the definition of person.
It's a bit silly for people to keep railing on Citizens United in particular. That was a group of people made a movie knocking a particular politician. The 1st amendment gives them the right to do this and also to organise themselves to do this. But officials tried to stop them because the law limited such activity by organisations.
But there will be lots of real-world cases where the corporation is not a political ginger group. There, the free speech (and free assembly) case becomes much weaker. A fully foreign owned corporation being the most clear case.