Literally? I didn't know that.
It actually seems like this NSA stuff has been harmful to a number of large American internet companies, so I guess they haven't done a very good job of running things in their own interests.
That said, I disagree with the grandparent's point that Corporation literally are the government. Instead, the need for large media budgets for re-election campaigns drives the political process, which makes corporations and politicians cosy.
A large percentage of those are overseas, and the remainder are concentrated in Mountain View (yes, I'm aware of satellite offices in SF, NYC, Boston, etc.) Call it 15K HQ employees, which should be enough to make an impact. Right?
Except that their own senator, California's Dianne Feinstein, remains arguably the most vocal NSA surveillance enthusiast on Capitol Hill. She'll get reelected with or without the help of those 15K voters -- in a state with a population of 40 million. (In reality the number is even lower because not all employees are U.S. citizens eligible to vote.)
And those 15K concentrated employees are negligible compared to companies like AT&T, which has 243,000 employees which tend to be inside the U.S. and spread more evenly through congressional districts: http://finance.yahoo.com/q/pr?s=T+Profile
Of course AT&T has long had a cozy relationship with the NSA very different from left coast companies: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57589012-38/
BTW, compare to WalMart's 2.2 million employees: http://finance.yahoo.com/q/pr?s=WMT+Profile
"Literally" is certainly a stretch, but at least indirectly, corporations spanning many sectors are very heavily influencing the government - for example finance, energy, food, military.
Just to make a very immediate example, bankers who had a central role in the 2000s financial crisis, are now executives or advisors of the government.
Process-wise, the HSBC case showed who's in charge between governments and large banks.