They couldn't stop the Dodd-Frank Wall Street reform legislation, though they pretty effectively watered it down. That hasn't stopped the banksters from spending like, well, banksters who want to buy their own political system to water it down even more. The Wonk Room's Pat Garofalo writes that
they're investing as much in fighting the regulations as they did in fighting the legislation.
According to an analysis by the Wall Street Journal, the banks’ spending on lobbying in the first quarter of 2011 was actually higher than it was in the first quarter of 2010, when Dodd-Frank was actively being debated:
Wall Street and the financial industry spent more to lobby Washington in the first quarter of this year than a year ago when Congress was writing sweeping financial-overhaul legislation, according to a Wall Street Journal review of lobbying reports released Thursday. [...]
The disclosures show that 26 of the financial firms and trade associations that spent the most in 2010 collectively spent $27 million in the three months ending March 31, a 2.7% increase from the $26.3 million spent in the comparable period in 2010.
When the height of the Dodd-Frank debate was going on last summer, the banks spent $27.3 million over three months, barely more than they spent in the first three months of this year.
One of the main knocks against Dodd-Frank is that it left too much discretion to the federal regulators, who work in a way that is much easier for special interests to influence. Rulemaking by federal agencies, which is slow and involves extensive open comment periods, is the perfect arena for lobbying shops to work their magic. The banks clearly realize this, and have been attending a host of meetings with the regulators, as well as submitting extensive comments on proposed rules.
It's much, much harder for grassroots and public advocacy organizations to lobby on the regulatory side than the legislative side. After all, the regulators aren't elected and don't have constituents to answer to. The rule-making process is even less transparent than the legislative process, and industry lobbyist can have tremendous influence. They sure as hell are not going to be wielding that influence on behalf of American consumers.