When we said “free speech”, we didn’t mean for you.
Now go pay your taxes - we need raises.
That "Congress shall make no law" thing is so completely beyond their little statist comprehension abilities. "But if we don't make a law, how are we supposed to shut people up that oppose our wonderfulness? It's an outrage!" they fume.
This has been a problem since Lincoln. There was no founding supreme court decision giving corporations civil rights, just the interpretation of the official court reporter, who then asked the Chief Justice, who agreed and said that was what all the other justices thought.
The Lincoln appointed a subordinate to flesh out the idea, which was needed because states had increasingly sought to exploit national corporations that did some business in their state, which was fouling up the works of Lincoln’s industrialization.
Since then it has grown into a monster, becoming the most important element of business law, and impacting almost every bit of business litigation.
In the last congressional election, one company on the East Coast decided to at least tongue in cheek, run the company for public office. Funny, except in current law, it might be sort of legal. As would corporations adopting children, and far more personal human rights.
So the bottom line is that yes, corporation do need rights, but that these rights need to be split from the constitutional rights of people, not eliminated.
This has a natural split in the difference between individual rights and group or collective rights. An example of the latter being religious rights. A person cannot declare his own religious rights based on his own religion, if it is in contravention of the law. But a group of people can most certainly do so.
It is telling that we can personhood for corporations but not human beings who are in the pre-born stage of life.
Well that's a start.
But the real problem is personal corporatehood.