Given that half the country loves the party that is anti-regulation, "small" government, I don't think you have your finger on the pulse of the nation, so to speak.
Not only would many people in the US be against this on principle ("the feds should stop meddling", "the free market will sort it out"), but the companies in question would invest lots of money into propaganda that many, many people would fall for.
My interpretation is that most people supporting that party may have bought into deregulation rhetoric, but would vote for any specific regulation that curbs a behavior they personally dislike unless a more stout believer talked them out of it.
The people you’re referring to, aka Republican voters, are mainly being led around by the nose. To be more specific, it’s my view that they view politics as a team sport and as entertainment and don’t think through their positions.
These people would be against maintaining their own lives if the Dems were for it.
The people he's referring to are probably best described as libertarian. "Republican" has been abused so much as a word (Democrat, too) that it's effectively useless to describe anything these days anyways.
Case in point: you're using it here to describe people who are not particularly wise to propaganda, which has nothing to do with the word at all. You're probably referring to social conservatives, but it's always hard to tell if comments like these are meant to be a strawman on purpose or not.
Then you're strawmanning, because of course this has nothing to do with the Republican voters writ large. Nothing really does, because as I already stated, the word is meaningless now. It's just the vague "enemy".
Not only would many people in the US be against this on principle ("the feds should stop meddling", "the free market will sort it out"), but the companies in question would invest lots of money into propaganda that many, many people would fall for.