Goldman Sachs, the powerful investment bank that has become a symbol of Wall Street influence among Democrats and Republicans alike, is on track to be one of biggest contributors in the presidential race again this year, with $794,609 chipped in so far.

But its allegiances are spread across the political map — consistent with the firm’s long history of cultivating influence no matter which candidate or party is in office.


Goldman Sachs employees are the top contributors to the Republican campaigns of Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio, according to an analysis of federal campaign finance records the Center for Responsive Politics conducted for POLITICO. They’ve given $483,500 to the campaign and super PAC supporting Bush and $79,600 to Rubio’s campaign and allied super PAC, the analysis shows.

Republican Ted Cruz’s wife is a Goldman Sachs executive whose colleagues have begun to step up with donations since she took a leave of absence to campaign and raise money for her husband. He’s taken in $43,575 from the company in total during his campaign.

And the firm has a long alliance with Democrat Hillary Clinton dating back to her Senate days. Goldman Sachs gave $169,850 to Clinton’s presidential campaign and super PAC, according to CRP’s analysis. The bank doled out $675,000 in speaking fees to Clinton after she left office.

The company’s relationships with presidential candidates have brought it under fire from both sides on the campaign trail. Bernie Sanders in Sunday’s debate dinged Clinton for her speaking fees, and his campaign kept up the line of attack in fundraising appeals, blasting out an email to supporters on Tuesday noting that a super PAC backing Clinton had recently placed a six-figure ad buy in Iowa. That group, Priorities USA, announced the buy after a Karl Rove-backed Republican commercial in Iowa slammed Clinton’s coziness with the financial sector. Sanders campaign manager Jeff Weaver made sure to mention that the super PAC is “predictably funded by a number of millionaires and billionaires, including a former Goldman Sachs executive.”

Donald Trump, meanwhile, took aim Wednesday at Cruz’s undisclosed loans from Goldman Sachs and Citibank to finance his 2012 Senate campaign. “Goldman Sachs owns him. Remember that, folks,” he told a crowd in Norwalk, Iowa, “They own him.”

The bank was President Barack Obama’s second-biggest money source in 2008. In this cycle, including contributions to congressional candidates, Goldman Sachs employees have already donated $2.3 million, compared with a total of $8.9 million in 2012, according to OpenSecrets.org.

Rubio’s haul includes $2,700 from Gary D. Cohn, the firm’s president and chief operating officer. Bush had a pair of fundraisers last March in New York with Goldman Sachs leaders, including Dina Powell, head of the bank’s philanthropic foundation; senior executive Jim Donovan; and John Waldron, co-head of investment banking. Its vice president of government affairs, Joe Wall, bundles for Rubio.

Hillary Clinton cultivated fundraising ties to Goldman Sachs during her Senate campaigns, when the bank was her No. 2 source of campaign cash, amounting to $234,670.

In Clinton’s current presidential run, Laura Blankfein, wife of Goldman CEO Lloyd Blankfein, gave her the maximum of $2,700 in the third quarter. Lloyd Blankfein has suggested he would be OK with either Bush or Clinton. Edith Cooper, executive vice president and global head of human capital management, supported Clinton’s 2008 bid.

In Sunday’s debate, Sanders referred four times to tax returns released by Clinton’s campaign showing she received a total of $675,000 for three speeches to the bank in 2013. Later, he declared, “Goldman Sachs is not going to bring forth a secretary of the Treasury for a Sanders administration.”

Company spokesman Andrew Williams said the bank hosts hundreds of conferences and seeks speakers who will interest its clients.

“The fact is that the Democrats have always been a lot closer to Wall Street than they’ve professed, and the Republicans have been a lot less affectionate toward Wall Street than has generally been perceived,” said a Republican lobbyist who works with financial industry clients. “Nowadays, candidates in both parties are turning it on, pushing the populist button to avoid being outflanked by their opponents.”

Goldman Sach’s most prominent presence in the campaign has been Cruz’s wife, Heidi, who took a leave of absence from her job as a managing director in the company’s Houston office in March. Since then, three associates from the Houston office have contributed to Cruz’s campaign.

The bank doesn’t allow executives to solicit political contributions from junior employees.

Cruzs finance chairman, Willie T. Langston, also used to work in Goldman Sachs’ Private Wealth Management Division in Houston. His Senate campaigns and leadership PAC got $96,700, his fifth-largest source.

Williams said political donations are the choices of individual employees, not centrally coordinated or controlled by the company. The contributions do have to be approved, to make sure they follow the law, he said.

“You can see from the giving history of employees that they support a broad range of political viewpoints and candidates,” he said.

The bank does have a PAC, but it doesn’t give to presidential candidates. Employees contribute to the PAC voluntarily. The company does not use corporate funds for campaign contributions, according to a written policy.

“On Wall Street, there are all sorts of nonverbal clues about how to behave, and this might be an example,” said William D. Cohan, author of “Money and Power: How Goldman Sachs Came to Rule the World.” “They’ve got the money and they love to be in the flow — they like to think they’re influencing things, and this is one way to do it.”

Goldman executives have gotten used to serving as political punching bags since the financial crisis, so none of the latest rhetoric comes as much of a surprise, a former executive said. Still, it’s a steep fall for a blue chip investment bank once known as a training ground for future senior Washington officials, most recently Hank Paulson, who served as Goldman CEO before becoming Treasury secretary.

“Since the financial crisis, Goldman has developed a pretty thick skin,” said a former senior Goldman executive. “The firm is used to being referenced as a proxy for Wall Street.”

Launching veterans into powerful positions was historically a key to Goldman’s success, Cohan said. While the current political winds seem to jeopardize that record, the last three appointed heads of the Federal Reserve district banks all once worked at Goldman Sachs, he said.

“The recent attention to Goldman Sachs money as a visible representative of big bank political spending is likely to have an impact on its public-facing connections and alumni appointments to the next administration,” said Lisa Gilbert, director of Public Citizen’s Congress Watch. “That said, we would expect Goldman and other Wall Street players to continue to play a backdoor influence game and attempt to push elected officials in a deregulatory direction despite their current campaign notoriety.”

Goldman is taking hits not just on the campaign trail. The bank reported Wednesday that its fourth quarter net income dropped 65 percent from that quarter last year to $765 million, a result mainly of Goldman’s $5 billion settlement with the Justice Department over its mortgage-bond sales practices before the financial crisis.

“Goldman has become the poster child for Wall Street mostly because it’s been the most successful and persevered notwithstanding all the problems,” said another former executive.

Ben White, Nick Gass and Zachary Warmbrodt contributed to this report.

