Getty ImagesWith Republicans taking control of the Senate, Sen. Elizabeth Warren will be restricted in her ability to go after big banks.Wall Street had a lot riding on this election. So, with the results now in, did it get what it paid for? Forget for a moment about the political parties and ideology. Yes, Republicans have traditionally been viewed as business friendly, but many of them were against the bank bailouts. Some argued that the Dodd-Frank Act of 2010 was too weak and didn’t end a too-big-to-fail system that put a burden on taxpayers. Democrats controlled Congress and the Oval Office immediately after the financial crisis, but no one from Wall Street has gone to jail, and there have been no meaningful criminal charges directly stemming from bad behavior in the lead-up to the crisis. And Dodd-Frank? It was a watered-down law, and even at that it hasn’t been fully implemented. So, when it comes to political spending, there isn’t a clear divide. Some Republicans help Wall Street. Some Democrats do, too. Money flows in both directions. And, boy, did it flow this time around. Wall Street spent $169 million this election cycle, more than any other industry. And, if you expand the definition of Wall Street to include real estate and insurance, the number swells to $306 million. By contrast, public-sector unions spent $44 million, according to OpenSecrets.org. John J. and Marlene Ricketts, founders of TD Ameritrade AMTD, +1.77% spent $6.7 million. George Soros of Soros Fund Management spent $3.79 million. Hedge-fund manager Ken Griffin of Citadel Investment Group spent $3.47 million. That's just a few of the well-known names. The top individual contributors’ list is made up mostly of investment managers, real-estate moguls and lawyers with deep ties to Wall Street. Their contributions came on top of money from organizations that include employees and companies. Koch Industries doled out $7.8 million; the AFL-CIO, $8.08 million. Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway Inc. BRK.A, +0.54%BRK.B, +0.52% forked over $3.3 million. Goldman Sachs Group Inc. GS, -0.23% spent $3.2 million. And none of this includes donations made through 501(c) organizations, which don’t have to disclose their contributors. These dollars basically financed a long list of candidates amenable to the donors’ interests. Hedge-fund and private-equity managers are interested in the carried-interest tax loophole that allows them to pay a lower rate on income. That issue hasn’t really budged, but it’s certain to die now with Republican control of both houses. Banks should be encouraged on two fronts. With more than 40% of Dodd-Frank’s final rules yet to be written, there’s a greater chance new restrictions will ease. Two big areas left unfinished include derivatives law and mortgage reform. And, as Paul Brandus noted in his column Wednesday, there could be a rolling back of Obamacare and student-loan reforms. Maybe the biggest victory for Wall Street will come in the Senate shift. The Senate Banking Committee is now led by South Dakota Sen. Tim Johnson. Under the Democrat, the committee has given a long leash to Sen. Elizabeth Warren, the Massachusetts Democrat who has been critical of Wall Street influence in Washington and is seen as a potential presidential nominee by more liberal voters in the party. Another key Democrat, Sen. Sherrod Brown of Ohio, may also be reined in. With a shift in control, that committee will get a new chairman. The ranking member is Sen. Mike Crapo of Idaho, but Sen. Richard Shelby of Alabama served as committee chairman from 2003 to 2007. Sens. Bob Corker of Tennessee and Mark Kirk of Illinois also could get bigger roles. Republican leadership will set the agenda for the committee, which has held hearings on multiple Wall Street transgressions, on high-frequency trading, on systemic risk, on student-loan debt and on financial-services consumer protections. Later this month, the lame-duck committee will review Wall Street’s influence at the New York Federal Reserve Bank. Ultimately, given the gridlock and bickering that has characterized Capitol Hill for several election cycles, Wall Street probably wasn’t getting a bad deal. With Tuesday’s results in the books, however, the financial-services industry probably added some insurance. Rules may be softer, and the embarrassment of public hearings will likely subside. If you’re an advocate of a safe banking system and fair markets and are wary of Wall Street’s intentions, stop complaining. You can spend your own $306 million in two years. David Weidner