This study examines lobbying activity during four California policymaking processes and through the four institutional venues available in that state: the legislative, executive and judicial branches, and the ballot initiative. It shows that past advocacy activity explains future mobilization on the same policy issue. Groups that fail to reach their policy goals will be more likely to mobilize later if the policy process changes venue, compared to those that have achieved their policy preference. Thus the availability of multiple venues provides a counter-weight to the possible advantages received by certain group types in each venue. Furthermore, public interest groups are more likely to mobilize across venues and repeatedly within a venue, while business groups are less likely to do so.