A column in the Examiner.com this week points out the different treatment that Capitol Hill gave the Wall Street crowd and the Big 3 automakers as each came looking for a help in the midst of the economic crisis.  In “The Big 3 and Wall Street bailouts show double standards at work,” Dave Hornstein, Detroit national politics examiner, notes that the auto execs cleaned up their act after showing up in Washington, DC via private jet. The CEOs then presented business plans that:  “included focusing on small cars and fuel efficiency; committing to exceed customer expectations in quality, fuel efficiency, safety and affordability; reducing the number of brands; and cutting production to meet reduced demand … (and) the United Auto Workers said it is willing to make additional contract concessions.”   It was different for the Pin Stripe crew.  “When it came to Wall Street getting a $700 billion bailout, the CEOs weren't asked for business plans, nor did they face a grilling before Congress for their mismanagement. There were two factors at work here. "The first is that lame duck Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, a former Goldman Sachs CEO, is a Wall Street insider … (H)is original plan was for a $700 billion blank check, with no oversight, no guidelines and no limits on executive pay. The plan was altered after a huge public outcry and major congressional objections.  “Secondly … Wall Street firms have spent far more in campaign contributions to members of Congress than the Big Three have done. Big campaign contributions can at times amount to legalized bribery. With a public campaign financing system, members of Congress could approach these issues with a more objective look at the merits and a primary focus on the public interest.”  Wall Street has donated about $2.2 billion to federal candidates in the last 20 years, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, while the auto industry gave a paltry $134 million during that time.