This study investigates the conditions under which pro-status quo groups increase their advocacy success during an entire policy-making process. It scrutinizes whether prostates quo defenders who are involved in multiple institutional venues and who join many coalitions of interest groups are able to achieve their policy preferences. A case study focusing on the regulation of stem cell research in California traces the policy making-process and the related advocacy activities of interest groups in the legislative, administrative, judicial, and direct-democratic venues. The empirical results, which are based on a formal Social Network Analysis, reveal that very few groups are multi-venue players and members of several coalitions. In addition, occupying a central network position is insufficient for the pro-status quo groups to improve their advocacy success.