A disturbing observation I've made regarding politics is that stances on issues are often highly cyclical (specifically in regards to the election cycle). This means that during an election year, candidates tend to fall "on the side of the people", and shortly afterwards, the politician's stances shift to favor their largest contributors.

I fear that this is the case here. All candidates (including President Obama) are in a competition to be elected. SOPA/PIPA are unpopular issues at the moment, and it is in the candidate's best interests to publicly oppose the bills. Once the votes are in, all debts must be repaid. Special interests have a longer memory than voters, and disappointing a campaign contributor is not an option if the candidate wants their support in the next election.

That's all I have to say on the matter. I don't wish to get very deep into politics here, except where they intersect with typical Hacker News interests.

Yes, I believe that was the case for all of them except Ron Paul. Ron Paul opposed it before it was cool for the other politicians to oppose it. Plus, it's against his beliefs, because he believes the Government shouldn't intervene in most issues. He opposed net neutrality, too, for the same reason, and that's actually something that "the people" wanted back then. So I wouldn't worry about him in regards to changing his mind depending on where the wind blows like that.

But I noticed at least a few Congressmen who were very opposed to net neutrality "because the Internet should be free, and the Government shouldn't intervene" (while receiving donations from carriers), and then going full 180 degrees, and becoming sponsors of SOPA (when receiving donations from Hollywood). Washington is full of hypocrites, and the current incentives to go and beg for the corporations' money for their campaigns, are definitely not helping.