It's been a tough time for big banks in the wake of the global recession.

The institutions were forced to accept billions in federal bailout money -- with restrictions placed on compensation and lobbying. Their executives have been pilloried in front of the House Financial Services Committee. And they have served as exhibit No. 1 for a growing populist surge on both the left and the right.

Community banks have taken advantage of their larger brethren's misfortune, touting that they weren't responsible for the mess. They carry the values of Main Street rather than Wall Street, small banks argue. That view, shared by many lawmakers, has emboldened their lobbying prowess.

"To a very significant extent they have a point," said Sen. Mike Crapo, R-Idaho, ranking member of the Senate Banking Financial Institutions Subcommittee. "If you look at what did result in the credit crisis as well as the mortgage bubble popping, it really was not the smaller banks."

The two story lines are clashing as Congress attempts to revamp the nation's financial regulatory system. Small banks are pushing legislation sponsored by Rep. Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill., chairman of the House Financial Services Financial Institutions Subcommittee, that would change the FDIC assessments to make it less onerous on them and make larger institutions pay more.

That builds on Treasury Department thinking that would charge big banks more because they are more complex to oversee. Some critics, though, claim such a move would have more to do with muting opposition by the Independent Community Bankers of America -- the primary lobbying groups for small banks -- to a proposed new consumer agency to monitor for abusive mortgages, credit cards and other financial products.

The ICBA, meanwhile, is on guard against an idea floated by Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., to further consolidate federal banking regulators beyond what the Obama administration has proposed by merging the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency with the Office of Thrift Supervision. Two large financial services lobbying groups, both representing big banks, support such a concept, arguing that it would make regulation more efficient and reduce costs.

"They're opportunistic," said Scott Talbott, vice president of the Financial Services Roundtable, regarding the ICBA's campaign. "Size has nothing to do with it. Why did some large institutions get in some trouble more than others? It wasn't something to do with size, it was the risk it took."

The political fortunes of small banks have been on the upswing after they were credited for killing legislation that would have allowed bankruptcy judges to adjust the terms of a home mortgage, including the principal.

Senate Majority Whip Durbin has noted his frustration with ICBA on negotiations over the bill, expressing displeasure when the group walked away even though he offered to exempt most of their members from the bill. "I think they ought to strike the name 'independent' from their name," Durbin grumbled last month.

Much of their strength results from the big role local bankers typically play in their communities, including knowing lawmakers on a personal basis. That provides a stark contrast to CEOs such as JPMorgan & Chase's Jamie Dimon or Citigroup's Vikram Pandit, who are better known for their CNBC appearances or speeches in front of business groups.

House Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank is reaching out to the group in his effort to move legislation creating the consumer protection agency, such as possibly placing language to require that examinations between the proposed agency and primary regulator are coordinated to save time and reduce cost.

In a signal of compromise, the administration has indicated a willingness to have larger banks, those with assets of more than $10 billion, pay more for any major reform and not have additional costs tacked on to smaller institutions.

With such an opening, the small banks are pushing the Gutierrez bill, which would determine FDIC premiums by a bank's total assets rather than the current practice of assessing based on domestic deposits.

The lawmaker has noted that banks with assets of up to $1 billion pay assessments on 80 percent of their overall liabilities because deposits are their primary source. In contrast, banks that have more than $10 billion in assets pay premiums of 47 percent of their liabilities.

His bill also would establish an additional risk premium for large banks whose failures could threaten the stability of the financial system, a major concern to small banks because large banks have grown even bigger by swallowing up competitors in the turbulent market.

"We want it to be more equitable," said Steve Verdier, ICBA's director of congressional relations. "The current system is the opposite ... We're pushing this very much."

But large banks would fight the move, calling such a pay system illogical because the agency insures only deposits. "You're using a premium base that doesn't correlate with the insurance policy. It's like using the value of your home to assess the premium on the car," said Talbott, whose group's membership includes Bank of America and JPMorgan Chase.

Small banks might be forced to play some defense, especially as Schumer works with Senate Banking Chairman Christopher Dodd to go beyond the consolidation called for by the Obama administration, which also calls for abolishment of the thrift charter.

For example, the Financial Services Forum, which also represents large firms, has proposed taking away on-site examinations from the FDIC and the Federal Reserve. State banking supervisors would still play a role for those who choose to be regulated at the local level, under its proposal.

Forum President Rob Nichols, a former assistant Treasury secretary, says on-site examinations are the most onerous and costly part of oversight for both the government and the bank. "Eliminating the duplication of multiple on-site examinations of the same institutions by multiple regulators would achieve tremendous additional rationalization of the current supervisory framework," he said in testimony to Congress.

But Verdier said a new national bank supervisor, as proposed by the administration, would likely write rules that would favor big banks, especially if it would have sole examination duties.

Taking away the input of the FDIC is a major worry, he said, because the agency has a good working relationship with many local banks. "We think the single regulator would focus the needs and interest of the larger institution and the community bank would be kind of left out in the cold," he said.

The schism is making for strange bedfellows in some instances. For example, Travis Plunkett, legislative director of the Consumer Federation of America, agrees with the contention of big banks that lawmakers should not focus on the size of the institution in their quest to further regulate products.

Plunkett said that while small banks for the most part did not push predatory loans, many community banks pushed exorbitant overdraft fees that have now come under scrutiny by the Federal Reserve and Congress.

The federation, however, argues, that all banks should come under greater scrutiny, especially under a new consumer protection agency.

"One of the big lessons we have learned from the financial crisis is, we need to regulate to the kind of product being offered, not the institution that is offering it," Plunkett said. "If there is an effort to carve out small institutions based only on their size, we will vehemently oppose it."