As he negotiated the regulatory overhaul, he dropped the administration's demand that financial firms offer so-called "plain vanilla" products along with more exotic financial products. He compromised on whether financial institutions would have to abide by state consumer-protection laws in addition to the laws enforced by the new agency. In legislation to bring transparency to the murky derivatives market, he carved out exemptions for companies that use the instruments to hedge against risk, as opposed to the large financial institutions who speculated on them. He's since said he may have carved the exemption too broadly.

"If you look at his liberal views, it's easy to say he's some scary socialist guy," said Steve Verdier, head of congressional affairs for the Independent Community Bankers Association. "But when you look at his approach to committee matters, there's a tremendous pragmatism."

But Verdier's group got the carveout from the more onerous provisions of the regulatory overhaul. Some of those who've come out on the losing end of the most recent battles believe that the spotlight of the current crisis is changing Frank’s approach.

"He has been viewed for some time as 'tough but fair,' someone who didn't let politics get in the way of the economics," said a financial services industry executive who didn't want to be named speaking about the powerful chairman. "He's lost some of the 'fair.' He's gotten more political."

The new consumer protection agency is not a popular concept with big business, particularly the financial powerhouses. Despite the recession, they have poured millions of dollars into lobbying and campaign contributions this year.

Conservatives see Frank's concessions less as friendliness to business and more a case of bowing to the political reality that conservative Democrats are balking at the ambitious regulatory plans.

"That these bills are even out there is somewhat business-hostile," said Mark Calabria, a former Senate Banking Committee staffer and now an economist at the libertarian Cato Institute. "But they've gotten moderated when conservative Democrats got heartburn. Barney has had more trouble keeping his caucus in line than I expected."

Liberals fume that many of the concessions to business derive from the political power of the financial industry, particularly over Frank's committee.

"People seek out the Financial Services Committee because the industry it deals with has the power to shower members with campaign contributions," said Representative Jackie Speier, who has fought unsuccessfully for a 36 percent interest-rate cap for lenders.

That financial sector has been writing checks. Commercial banks and finance and credit companies have donated more than $5.3 million to members of the committee during the last election and so far this year, according to Common Cause. Commercial banks have spent an additional $25 million in 2009 on lobbying. Finance and credit companies have spent $16.7 million on lobbying this year.

And that doesn't include the $27 million already spent this year on lobbying by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the leading critic of the regulatory overhaul.

But Frank insists that the defeats large banks have suffered during the regulatory-reform debate show that community business leaders have more sway than big national donors.

"The media mistakenly think it's campaign contributions," Frank said. "Votes beat money."

Frank has been sending his bills out of committee one at a time to be wrapped up in one big package for the House floor in December, around the time the Senate committee will begin hammering out its version of the overhaul. There is already one significant disagreement. Frank's plan would enhance the Federal Reserve's regulatory power over large banks, but Dodd wants to strip the Fed of that power by consolidating bank regulation in one new agency.

But Frank, characteristically blunt, won't talk about how he sees the differences getting worked out.

"It’s a great mistake," Frank said, "to negotiate things before you negotiate."