The biggest international banks, the ones whose risky bets and aggressive selling of repackaged mortgages were at the center of the financial crisis, have been back in the news lately.

Much of the news is not good news. At least not for those who believe the banks, some of whom survived the 2008-09 financial crisis with billions of dollars in taxpayer bailouts, still pose great risks to the economy.

But for all the talk during the crisis of banks that were “too big to fail” posing risks and benefiting from implicit government backing, not much has changed.

The much-touted financial reform act, known as the Dodd-Frank act, does not break up the biggest banks, something urged by many experts and regulators. Conservative commentators, including George Will and Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan, support breaking up the big banks. Even Sanford Weil, former CEO of Citigroup, now says that the biggest, too-big-to-fail banks are simply too big.

Multiple banking scandals have been in the news in recent months, from interest rate rigging of the international benchmark LIBOR rate by several banks to charges against British banking giant HSBC of more than a decade of money laundering for Mexican drug lords and Middle Eastern terrorist organizations.

U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., recently pressed federal regulators during a finance hearing about why not a single banker was prosecuted over his or her role in the financial crisis.

Then, Attorney General Eric Holder admitted on March 6 when testifying before a Senate committee that “too-big-to-fail banks” are also essentially too big to prosecute. Holder said the Justice Department is held back from aggressive prosecution of banks and top executives because financial officials from the Wall Street-friendly Treasury Department warn that a major prosecution of a big bank or its top executives could harm the national or global economy.

To be fair, there have been several hundred-million-dollar settlements and one billion-dollar fine, but given the giant banks’ annual profits, these financial deals to avoid a full trial are little more than a slap on the wrist.

It’s also been well documented that the biggest banks have competitive advantages not enjoyed by smaller banks because of the implicit government backing of the megabanks: future bailouts.

These big banks enjoy extremely low borrowing rates through the Federal Reserve’s discount window, and also have FDIC insurance, despite dealing in risky investment activities that are not part of a traditional commercial bank.

To address these concerns, U.S. Sens. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, and David Vitter, R-La., are working to build bipartisan support for breaking up the biggest banks.

As evidence of the need to downsize the biggest megabanks, Brown notes that 18 years ago, the six largest banks had assets equal to 16 percent of gross domestic product (GDP). Today, those top six banks have assets worth about 65 percent of GDP.

The big banks were too big to fail before the financial crisis — and they grew even bigger during the crisis as they bought up weaker competitors.

An increasing number of conservatives, while normally aligned with business interests, support efforts to break up the biggest banks because of the crony capitalism that surrounds the big Wall Street banks and protects them from free market capitalism — dire consequences for overly risky behavior.

Because of the golden revolving door between Washington and Wall Street, the chances of breaking up the biggest banks, or even seeing federal prosecutions of top executives to send a message, is still a long shot. But the Senate effort by Brown and Vitter deserves the attention — and support — of Americans from across the political spectrum.

The too-big-to-fail banks are not good for the U.S. or global economies — or for U.S. taxpayers. Wall Street’s special treatment by Washington should end.