Some banks to refuse bailout to preserve big executive bonuses?

Now that the $700B bailout has been approved by Congress and signed by President Bush, what's next?  I had presumed Secretary Paulson and Chairman Bernanke would go about finalizing a plan and start handing out the dough to the appreciative beneficiaries.  The Guardian UK reported yesterday it may not go that way.

Fears are mounting that many Wall Street banks and financial firms will refuse to participate in the US government's $700bn bail-out package, leaving global markets and world economies in a perilous state for months to come.

'There is a growing feeling that banks ... might instead decide to tough it out,' said Thomas Caldwell, chairman and CEO of Caldwell Financial, a $1bn-plus fund manager.

Now, why in the world would the banks refuse the money?  I read a bit more about it, even looked at some conservative blogs.  One of them was celebrating the banks refusal, they asserted these principled banks were repudiating the "socialist" bailout and exemplifying the best capitalist ideals.

They should have read a bit more of the Guardian article:

But Wall Street analysts, believe the addition of so many terms to the bill might deter potential participants.

One of the least attractive elements is a section designed to curb executive pay at banks that participate in the bail-out package. These include limiting stock-related pay and banning 'golden parachutes' for executives.

'I think this hodge-podge of regulations and rules will be enough to put many [chief executives] off participating,' Caldwell said.

So, the reason some banks may forego the money is not some principled embrace of the free market.  It was because accepting the help would limit the executive payouts later.  Now that's capitalism at it's finest.