It's no secret. Democrats are seeking to reform the hand that feeds them.

Connecticut Democrat Chris Dodd leads the Senate fight for financial reform. But on Monday, Dodd will travel to Manhattan's Upper East Side to attend a fundraiser at a Wall Street executive's home.

This is the way Washington works, of course. Famously, or perhaps notoriously, Goldman Sachs employees amounted to the second largest group to donate to Barack Obama's 2008 campaign. Citigroup and JPMorgan Chase came in at six and seven.

But there are new signs Wall Street is turning on, or slightly away from, Democrats.

The colossus of New York City metropolitan finance -- commercial banks, finance, investment, securities and credit card companies -- have dramatically upped their contributions to the Republican Party in recent months, according to a Center for Responsive Politics examination of preliminary fundraising data for RealClearPolitics.

Republicans collected about three-quarters of the political contributions from the New York City financial industry, 76 percent, in March. About two-thirds went to Republicans in February. A slim majority went to Republicans in January. By comparison, the industry gave at least three quarters of its contributions to Democrats over the same period in 2009 and 2008, and two-thirds to Democrats in 2007.

The Wall Street Journal found a similar pattern in its survey of the industry's biggest banks. For the first time since 2004, Wall Street's 12 largest firms gave more of their campaign donations -- 52 percent -- to Republicans than Democrats during the first quarter of 2010. The banks donated more to Democrats in 2008 (57%) and 2006 (52%).

One of Democrats' most-prolific national fundraisers has noticed. "I had somebody pretty likely to max out his check to Democrats about a week or two ago. But after some piece of Democratic rhetoric, he said, ‘I just can't do it now, I'm being scapegoated,'" the fundraiser recalled, asking that his name be withheld to speak candidly.

"Some of the Wall Street's folks feel attacked," he added. "And frankly, after reading Michael Lewis' new book, I haven't been asking for their donations, especially my traditional donors from Goldman. It would look awkward. We don't want it to look like we are raising huge amounts from Goldman Sachs."

Not, at least, right now. And Goldman employees seem pleased to oblige.

Democrats have been raising huge sums from Goldman for years. Goldman employees have donated more to Democrats than Republicans in every election since 1989. But in the first quarter of this year, according to CRP, Goldman has given a slim majority of its donations to Republicans.

In recent months, at least two Goldman employees have expressed regret to me -- replete with colorful expletives -- that they donated to Obama's campaign. One Goldman veteran pointed out -- witch-hunt inference intended -- that the same Senate committee that grilled their executives handled the McCarthy hearings.

For good reasons, the public is not ready to bring out the violins. The only major institution Americans view more negatively than the federal government is banking and finance, according to the Pew Research Center.

Certainly, Goldman has an argument. Senators put on a classic morality play this week. "Should Goldman Sachs be trying to sell a shitty deal?" Sen. Carl Levin assailed one Goldman exec.

Most of Goldman's controversial actions are common among their competitors. It has, perhaps because it is considered the best at what it does, become the archetypal antagonist for what Wall Street does.

Yet for all the public flogging of Wall Street, the tension between Democrats and the industry remains largely outside the public purview. Goldman chief Lloyd Blankfein, like Citigroup's Vikram Pandit, has expressed support for financial reform.

This is how industry often massages reformers. Last year, Philip Morris publicly supported the tobacco reform that granted the FDA the authority to regulate tobacco products for the first time. In reality, however, most companies desire more regulation about as much as Americans desire higher gas prices or children a curfew.

The real story of reform is always backroom. "You can be at the table or you can be on the menu," goes an old Washington line.

Wall Street has always been at the table. Now big finance is crowding the table to change the menu. Wall Street's shift towards the GOP also reminds Democrats -- that menu will have repercussions.

Reuters reported that big bank lobbyists are most concerned with derivative proposals. Last year, the five largest banks earned a total of $23 billion from derivatives trading. The Democratic Senate bill will move large swaths of derivatives to an open and regulated exchange. That addresses a key cause of the market crash. It will also lessen big bank profits.

But banks see worse outcomes. Arkansas Democrat Blanche Lincoln's measure will, if adopted, force banks to spin off their derivative divisions or lose federal aid. For all the empty rhetoric about ending "too big to fail," this measure would cut into the bigness of the big banks. Thus it's Wall Street's bête noir. Republicans, like New Hampshire's Judd Gregg, are also vehemently opposed.

And that's only one legislative fight. Regardless of the bill's final form, the nexus between Wall Street and Washington will surely endure. Only the partisan orientation shifts. Big banks still gave more than 40 percent of their contributions to Republicans in 2008. Wall Street hedges its bets in finance and politics.

And so do Democratic fundraisers. The top fundraiser, scruples notwithstanding, remains close to Goldman top brass and its competitors.

"Sure," the fundraiser said, "We still want money from Wall Street."

This is why, after all, Chris Dodd is going to the Upper East Side.