Cool story bro.
How about some evidence
1. campaigning is mercantilism
2. campaigning is not free speech
3. campaigning is blocking anybody from knowing anything
I am aware mercantilism protects people from competition, I am not convinced this is an example of it.
The discussion is not of "campaigning" in the general sense, but of a very particular application of the practice. Surely this must be obvious. Here, lobbyists campaign for or against very specific laws to protect their interests in ways that discourage competition both directly by stunting or compelling other business entities, or indirectly by repressing the consumers' ability to judge the desirability of products on the shelves.
"Free market" does not mean "free for all" where people, hiding behind the nonsense of the "corporate veil", are free to do whatever their morbidly distorted senses of competition dictate.
If we are going to have the evil of governMENT, primarily because we are too lazy, greedy, willfully ignorant, and timid to govern ourselves, then let us at least make the best of it. While perfection may not be attainable, we can do a damned sight better than what we now have. If we accept the premise that there is but one purpose of governMENT, which is the guaranty and protection of human rights, and we murderously certain that those placed into positions of public trust were held feet to the fires of Hell itself, 98% of the problems we experience today would be gone within five years.
Pursuant to that, corporations would lose all status, save as legal conventions by which a potentially ever changing group of owners of a set of assets set to some organized operational purpose. A "corporation" would become nothing more than a contractual specification to which the parties to ownership would agree and share in their respective contractual rights and responsibilities. That's it. Form one. Don't form one. No matter to anyone, including the temporal agents of governance. You will not, however, enjoy any special treatment and most definitely will not rest immune from the consequences of your actions, regardless of magnitude.
But that is not what we have. Therefore, if one is going to take advantage of the wholly nonsensical and I daresay criminal provisions of the relevant statutes, then by all means should corporations be compelled to label their food products in some gory detail in order that the consumer will be able to at least partly protect himself where governMENT steadfastly fails to do so, and indeed has a complicit hand in enabling the corporation in question to damage the consumer.
Were it otherwise, the consumer would be able to go directly after the parties responsible and those parties could potentially face the noose.