Revenue != Profit
Or to put it another way, you can run a company such that you roughly break even, at which point it doesn't matter what your revenue is, $185m is still a big number. In that case hopefully you have a lot of discretion as to how you spend your money such that you can just spend less in one area to account for the $185m, but if you're breaking even because you can't do any better, as opposed to breaking even because you're putting all your profit back into R&D, then $185m might be hard to deal with.
All that said, for a company like Wells Fargo, it probably is basically just a slap on the wrist.
Now it's certainly possible that your investments aren't liquid enough for you to free up the $215 to pay the fine, but that's a different situation (and is your own damn fault). Companies can be in this situation too, but don't mistake the existence of this situation as a refutation of my argument, because it's not. My argument at its core is that a person making $100k can be expected to much more easily be able to absorb a particular fine than a person (with the same cost of living) making $50k, but you can't necessarily say this about companies, because a person's salary isn't dependent upon how much they spend, but a company's revenue is, and so if company A has a higher revenue than company B that does not mean company A's profits are higher.
Somebody earning $100k/yr might have, say, $30k/yr left after taxes and expenses, but most companies don't have 140% profit margins.
Most companies aren't Wells Fargo, though, since they don't have $20bn in cash savings, and don't make $36bn profit on their $86bn revenue: a 40% margin.
The numbers only need a slight alteration if we scale the fines by relative disposable income/profit. The $185m fine is about 0.5% of Wells Fargo profits, so for our hypothetical person with $30k/yr left over, it's more like a $154 fine, but he also has a savings account with $16k in.
I'd say the analogy basically checks out in this case.