While I support what the FSF stands for, this is doomed to be an ineffective campaign. Even if everybody who knows what secure boot is buys a computer with secure boot (a bold assumption, most will), we'd barely put a dent in their sales. I think the best route to pursue is exposing SecureBoot for what it is - an anticompetitive technology thinly disguised as a security measure. It's difficult to buy a new computer that doesn't come with secure boot, anyhow. I wonder how the SEC would feel about such anticompetitive measures if a strong enough case were to be made.
I'm glad that the FSF is trying to do something about this. While it might not seem so bad now, they're boiling frogs - I expect that legacy mode will be removed soon, and Win 8 SP1 or Win 9 will disable support for BIOS. If we're going to do anything about this, it needs to be soon.
On a side note, as much as I hate people hiring lobbyists, I wish the FSF had more. People are far too ignorant to the problems at hand to be able to cause change outside of a governmental framework - and I'm also glad that the FSF is fighting ignorance with compaigns like DefectiveByDesign.