This morning, I cited a Washington Post story about Wall Street lobbyists panicked over financial regulation. Maybe the most interesting aspect of the piece is that the lobbyists admit, repeatedly, that the process is going badly for them because it's open. They're getting hammered because voters are paying attention, and what they need is to move the negotiations to a venue where democratic accountability is obscured. The frankness of the admissions here is breathtaking:

They were counting on Senate committee hearings and backroom negotiations among key lawmakers to remove or soften what the financial industry considers most objectionable in the bill. ...
"You've got an environment, six months before an election, where politicians are acting like politicians," said Sam Geduldig, a financial lobbyist and former Republican staffer. "They are viewing any vote as a potential campaign ad. And that might not be good for any of us."...
Some industry lobbyists, bracing for significant setbacks in the Senate, already are pinning their hopes on the House-Senate conference process, where differences between the bill and the House version would be worked out. ...
Now, Dodd's legislation has reached the Senate floor largely intact. And there's a real possibility the bill could attract populist amendments that few lawmakers would want to oppose publicly, lest they be accused of protecting Wall Street....
"They've got to get this thing off the [Senate] floor and into a reasonable, behind the scenes" discussion, said one lobbyist. "Let's have a few wise fathers sit around the table in some quiet room" and work out the details.

Of course, the problem isn't that the big banks have no say in this bill. Even now, the capital holder of a large Wall Street firm has vastly more influence over this debate than the average American. They're just used to a situation where they dominate the negotiations and Congress's concern for public opinion borders on zero.