I think it's irresponsible to say "don't vote for this incumbent because he/she supported SOPA" without offering any explanation on the alternative candidates' positions on SOPA. It seems probable that some portion of the opponents might also support SOPA-like legislature.
American politics has always been about voting for the guy/party who hasn't fucked you over yet, even if they're just as likely to as the first guy. That's why we see the house majority, senate majority, and presidency change hands between the "two" parties so often.
That's by design, and it's a beautiful thing. Set up a solid set of core human rights and then design a system that disempowers bickering politicians and you've got a flourishing democracy. Unfortunately, it decays over time.
Real facts and actions are better than a theory that another one might do it, too. You need to take that into consideration, too, but at the end of the day one actually voted for SOPA, and another hasn't (at least yet). To me the option is clear.
I guess it's clear if your voting entirely on one issue, which is what the OP is about.
For me, the alternative is a Republican candidate, who if he wins, has the potential to change the majority of the Senate, and has taken positions I do not agree with, including reproductive rights, marriage equality, energy and global warming.
I don't agree with SOPA at all but I feel like it's something that would actually be debated. These other issues are so polarizing that it becomes majority rule and to me, that makes them more important.
Regardless, it's good to be educated about your candidates.
Public statements/positions are actions and have a lot of predictive value. Do you seriously think that we should AVOID looking into the other candidate's relationship to the issue?
