Secondly, the interests of transnational Corporations and humanity as a whole are mostly opposed to each other, as those Corporations are trying to maximize their profits at the expense of those people who are not essential to maintain their production and sales processes, meaning that all people who are neither (potential) customers nor highly skilled and therefor non-expendable workers are to be utilized to maximum effect (read: exploited) to generate maximized profits. In general, from the point of view of the company, the well being of people is only relevant in so far as it affects the profits of that company, if profits can be increased by harming people without this negatively affecting the company then people will be harmed.
Another point is that the enviroment, which in itself is also a ressource that is utilized in any production process, is also exploited und abused to maximize profits. In most cases this leaves the private company with the profits and the public with the costs in form of envorimental destruction, pollution and associated health effects, of which the removal is either paid for by the tax payer or by no one at all, meaning that it just lingers there as a constant threat to public health. Therefor the interests of the public and those of private Corporations are opposed to each other in this regard as well.
The above point is especially ironic because advertising and marketing makes people, or "consumers" believe that they need to buy loads of unnecessary crap, which is then produced at their expense and ultimately does not only hurt them financially but may also harm them physically in the end.
So yes, most people do not benefit if Corporations benefit and should therefore vote with "humans" here, only the few people who benefit directly from increased profits should vote Corporations. That does of course put most people on the "left", however it should be noted that those "left" policies are actually in the interest of most people, while most policies commonly associated with the "right" benefit mostly the rich, a minority of society.
Of course there is a lot of propaganda to to show that what's good for the rich is also good for everyone else, so that many people support policies which actually hurt them personally, which is why more people vote for politicians who want to implement neoliberal policies than there are people who would actually benefit from those policies.
So the questions are not biased, it's just that many policies commonly associated with the "left" are those that are in the interests of the majority of people. So it is only natural that more people would end up there, and also vote for it in actual elections.
However the goal of a candidate in an election in a representative democracy is to delude people into thinking they would represent their voter's interests, to get elected and then carry out their own agenda, which benefits them and those who bribed them (a.k.a. gave them "campaign contributions") while using his PR strategist to still let it appear as if he were serving the interests of those who elected him. Which is why so many people vote to hurt themself.