Practice
Lobbyists price retainers in the dark. This page collects what the market actually looks like — published reference points, your own private rate history, and a worksheet for scoping fees. Ranges, never quotes.
The figures below are historical, anonymized market observations for information only. They are not recommendations, and they are not an agreement with anyone about what to charge. Never use this page to set prices together with competitors, agree on fee floors, or divide clients or markets — coordinating prices with competitors is illegal under federal and California antitrust law. Study the market, then set your fees independently.
Benchmarks
Practitioner-reported benchmarks, not quotes. Every figure carries its basis and sample size. Where no sourced data exists, the cell reads benchmark pending — we show the gap rather than invent a number. No range is published for a segment until it has at least 5 practitioner reports.
Honestly-sourced figures that inform the market picture. Each is labeled for exactly what it is — a guide, a dataset derivation, or a salary survey — not a Sacramento rate survey, because no published survey of California contract-lobbyist retainers exists as of October 2026.
California lobbying spending hit a record ~$540 million in 2024, up more than 10% from 2023, per CalMatters' analysis of Secretary of State filings — the most ever spent to influence state government. Federally, 2024 set a record at $4.44 billion (OpenSecrets). Demand for representation is growing; fee transparency hasn't kept up. That's the gap this page exists to close.
Your rates — private
Saved only in this browser (localStorage silobbyist_pricing_v1) — never sent anywhere. Use anonymized labels ("Client A"), never client names. Each entry is compared against the closest benchmark, where one exists.
Export: JSON · CSV · delete all my data
Worksheet
A scoping worksheet: your inputs in, a suggested range out. Multipliers are disclosed assumptions for structuring your thinking — not market data. Nothing here is a quote.
Worksheet assumptions, shown so you can interrogate them: suggested fee = hours × your hourly rate × complexity multiplier, presented as a ±15% band. Project fees add a 20% fixed-scope premium; hourly advisory is billed straight. Client type is recorded for your records only — it does not change the math, because no sourced data supports a client-type multiplier.
Full methodology — sources, derivations, antitrust note, and refresh process — is documented in the knowledge base (kb/pricing-methodology.md) that powers Goldie's answers on pricing.