The House passed the Keeping Deposits Local Act on May 20 by a vote of 405-0. Not a single nay. Not a single present. In a chamber that can't agree on a lunch order, that's either a genuine consensus moment or a bill so uncontroversial that voting against it would have been a career-defining act of self-sabotage. Three sitting members of Congress who disclosed holdings in Goldman Sachs were present for that vote. Two of them didn't vote at all. One did. The filings are public. The calendar is public. The rest is just arithmetic.
The Bill
H.R. 3234, the Keeping Deposits Local Act, passed the House 405-0 on May 20, 2026. The bill sits squarely inside the Financial Services sector, tagged to Capital Markets. The stated intent is to give community banks and local depositories a leg up in how deposits are classified and retained. Any bill touching deposit structures, capital allocation, and bank regulation is legislation that people who hold large-cap financial stocks might want to pay attention to. Goldman Sachs is, to put it gently, not a community bank — but it is deeply embedded in the capital markets infrastructure that bills like this reshape at the margins. And margins, in financial services, are where the money lives.
A 405-0 vote is unusual enough that it deserves a sentence. The tally signals that leadership had already scrubbed out any serious opposition before the bill hit the floor, or that every member decided the political cost of a nay vote exceeded whatever ideological objection they might have had. Either way: unanimous. Logged. Done.
The Three Holders
Cross-reference the vote with disclosed portfolio filings and three names surface. All three hold Goldman Sachs Group stock. All three are sitting members of Congress. None of them are obscure backbenchers. What each of them did on May 20 is worth looking at closely, because the three situations are quite different.
Josh Gottheimer voted Yea. That's the straightforward one. Gottheimer, a Democrat from New Jersey's 5th district, is one of the more financially literate members of the House — a former tech executive who has never been shy about his interest in financial markets legislation. He voted yes on a bill that touches the sector in which he holds stock. That's a fact in the public record.
Dave McCormick did not vote — and couldn't. McCormick is a senator, not a House member, so the floor vote on H.R. 3234 was not his to cast. He disclosed Goldman Sachs holdings in his financial filings, and his background running Bridgewater Associates means his capital markets fluency is about as relevant to this sector as anyone's in the building. He's listed here because the disclosure is public. The chamber is public too.
Maria Elvira Salazar was not voting. The Florida Republican represents the 27th district and sits on the House Financial Services Committee — the committee with jurisdiction over the exact sector this bill addresses. She was listed as Not Voting on the May 20 roll call. Not absent from Washington, not paired, not present. Not voting. On a 405-0 bill. Salazar holds Goldman Sachs in her disclosed portfolio, and her committee seat means she had more contact with this legislation than most of the 405 members who voted yes. The Financial Services Committee is where bills like H.R. 3234 get shaped before they ever reach the floor.
The Committee-Sector Overlap
Sitting on the House Financial Services Committee is not incidental. Members on that committee see legislation in draft form. They attend hearings, mark up bills, and hear from lobbyists, regulators, and industry representatives about exactly how a piece of legislation will move capital, change reporting requirements, or alter the competitive landscape for institutions like the one whose stock they hold.
Salazar's committee assignment and her Goldman disclosure are not two unrelated data points. They're two points on the same map. Whether that map leads anywhere is a question the existing rules don't require anyone to answer. Members are required to disclose. They are not required to divest, recuse, or abstain.
That's the rule.
Goldman Sachs and the Capital Markets Angle
Goldman Sachs is not a community bank. The Keeping Deposits Local Act is, at least nominally, designed to benefit local depositories and smaller institutions. The Venn diagram between Goldman's core business and the bill's stated beneficiaries is thin. But Goldman operates across the full stack of financial services: deposit products, capital markets intermediation, regulatory capital, and the institutional infrastructure that community banking rules ultimately feed into. A bill that reshapes deposit classification rules doesn't leave Goldman untouched just because Goldman isn't the named beneficiary.
The Financial Services sector broadly moves on regulatory signals. A unanimous House vote on a capital markets bill is a signal. The market reads signals. Three members of Congress who hold Goldman Sachs stock were in the building when that signal was sent. One voted yes. One couldn't vote. One chose not to.
The Disclosure System, Doing What It Does
The STOCK Act requires members to disclose trades within 45 days of execution. It does not require them to explain their positions, divest conflicted holdings, or sit out votes where their portfolio has a rooting interest. The theory of the law is that sunlight is sufficient. You tell the public what you own. The public can draw its own conclusions.
What the public gets here is three names, three Goldman positions, one bill, one unanimous vote, and three different relationships to that vote. Gottheimer voted yes. McCormick is a senator who had no vote to cast on a House bill. Salazar sat out a 405-0 vote on legislation touching her committee's jurisdiction while holding stock in a company squarely in that sector.
405-0 and What That Means
A unanimous vote creates a particular kind of cover. When 405 members vote yes and zero vote no, the individual yes votes disappear into the aggregate. Nobody is the swing. Nobody is the deciding factor. Bills that are genuinely controversial don't land at 405-0. Bills that have been pre-negotiated, pre-cleared, and pre-approved by leadership on both sides do.
For a member with a Goldman position, voting yes on a 405-0 financial services bill is the least risky move imaginable. The bill passes with or without your vote. Your vote leaves no fingerprints. The only way to make it interesting is to not vote — which is what Salazar did — or to be in the wrong chamber, which is McCormick's situation.
Gottheimer's yes vote is a matter of public record. His Goldman holding is a matter of public record. The vote passed 405-0.
What the Filings Show
Pull the disclosure filings and the picture is clean. Three members of Congress report Goldman Sachs holdings. The House just passed capital markets legislation unanimously. The Financial Services sector is the direct subject of the bill. One holder voted yes. One holder is in a different chamber. One holder was not voting on a day when 405 of her colleagues found the time.
The receipts are public. Readers get to bring their own opinion.