Yes, I've tread this ground many years before and after Romney sputtered the obvious: corporations are people. For typical, trite, incredulous innerboob responses in the US has been, "I'll believe that when I see a corporation in an orange jumpsuit [US penal uniform]" and "Personhood is [FILL IN EXPLETIVE].

Cognates, dualism, diversification

The word "corporation" is a common noun like a "tree", the "tribe", a "group", the "club", a "school", the "service," and so forth. The name of a corporation is a personal noun. Whatever the name adopted by a group of people is the alias (legal idiom "term of art") for each and every member; the name is not the object-in-itself :) "US Steel" for instance performs the same semantic function as "Chippewa". What neither name denotes, as does a common noun, is the systematic value or common purpose(s) of that particular group of people. Nor does it perforce describe the actual activities of the group's members, eg. "Nike".

People have formed and dissolved corporations, like, forever.

It's the scope and anonymity of individual members engrossed by such naming that some people express difficulty comprehending ... as they do pronouns, particularly indiscriminate usage of the first-person plural, "we," likewise ambiguous second-person usage (Eng. sing. and pl.) in context of first-person (self) referential speech, a very weird and contemporary expression of alienation.

Why do people incorporate?
To accomplish a goal that one alone cannot. "Belonging" is a crude expression of that need. But so is diversifying risk of injury to oneself: It is at this point that overweening social, economic, financial, material and mortal explanations of and "motivations" (sic) for so-called modern "corporatism" converge.

Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.