In a move that reeks of lobbyist-influenced legislation, House Republicans tacked an amendment onto a federal funding bill on Feb. 17. The amendment denies money to the Federal Communications Commission’s network neutrality measures and eliminates government funding for public broadcasting.

The bill, which was passed by the House, seems to benefit large media corporations and Internet providers more than anyone else by simultaneously allowing corporate restriction of the Internet and stifling the public debates that are featured on public broadcasting.

The net neutrality rules the FCC passed in December 2010 were weak and vague enough to begin with without the House completely blocking them via budgetary restrictions. While the measures would theoretically prevent corporate extortion and online censorship by Internet service providers, they were barely enforceable. The rules were so ambiguously worded and full of loopholes they wouldn’t have any noticeable effects. The few rules the FCC did implement would only have applied to wired networks, leaving wireless providers like Verizon Communications Inc. and AT&T Inc. free to implement paid prioritization measures.

Paid prioritization would allow ISPs to devote higher bandwidth and more reliable service to websites that pay for preferential treatment. Other sites would be left with subpar service if they don’t pay up, and some could even be deliberately slowed down or blocked altogether if an ISP chose to do so. In other words, paid prioritization would give service providers free reign to practice extortion and censorship on the Internet.

Net neutrality is important to implement because consumers deserve to have equal, unfettered access to whichever websites or online services they want. This access should not be hindered or affected by corporate greed or companies’ attempts to extort or stifle their competition. The Internet is supposed to be a free and open marketplace of ideas, and our access to those ideas should not be limited because the people publishing them can’t afford to pay for premium distribution.

However, some net neutrality opponents’ concerns may have some validity to them. Such regulations should not turn into a stepping stone for government control of the Internet. Government attempts to keep corporations from restricting Internet access should not lead to eventual government meddling in Web censorship and restriction. The whole idea is to keep the Internet free and open, and any regulations put in place should always serve that end above all else.

Republican opponents of net neutrality legislation claim the rules create too much government interference in the free market and corporate affairs. It would be wonderful if we could trust corporations of this magnitude—especially with this much money and influence at stake—to regulate themselves and act in consumers’ best interests, but that’s just a pipe dream. We took a hands-off approach with Wall Street, and instead of a market that regulated itself, we got a bunch of investment bankers who crippled our economy for three years and counting. There has to be some level of oversight to ensure corporations don’t sacrifice consumers for the sake of quick profits.

Moreover, our legislators should be more concerned with defending the interests of the people than granting more powers to corporations. It’s difficult to imagine anybody other than media and network corporations who will benefit from the lack of network neutrality measures and public broadcasting.

Luckily, this bill is unlikely to make it past Senate Democrats who said they don’t intend to support it. Legislators will probably be forced to eventually rework the bill to allow a federal spending plan to move forward. When they do, they should reconsider their priorities and look into supporting the FCC’s net neutrality measures and strengthening them so they can be effectively used for their intended purpose.