Political influence in the US has long been synonymous with K Street, the corridor of glass-paned powerhouses and high monthly retainers. But a new trend is emerging as remote work becomes more common and the legislative landscape becomes more complex.
Veteran advocates and former government officials are opting to set up their own firms. These experts often are former Hill staff or executive branch officials who prefer a smaller, more specialized portfolio and value professional autonomy.
Some specialize in niche markets, serving narrow client bases and honing their expertise to a particular market or type of interest group. For example, there are firms that specialize in public sector clients such as local governments and special districts, or local school districts and institutions of higher learning—these groups share similar though not always identical interests. Others focus on delivering scalable services such as grants advocacy or fly-ins to a wide array of clientele.
The result of these entrepreneurial endeavors is a set of highly specialized boutique government relations firms. While an attractive model for some, one size doesn’t fit all.
There are reasons to go with a larger firm, and there are reasons to opt for a smaller one. This applies not only to clients, but also to lobbying firms themselves. Sometimes a larger firm will partner with a smaller firm for niche expertise or service. Other times, smaller firms will partner with large firms to expand their reach.
As the number of small and solo lobbying firms continues to grow, so do their strategic partnerships. Many smaller firms engage in a collaborative model, partnering with trusted colleagues to deliver a wide range of expertise. Leslie Mozingo, CEO of Strategics Consulting, once told me that strategic partnerships allow boutique firms to leverage special expertise on demand rather than having a full-time staff for every issue.
This agile approach ensures clients receive elite intelligence on specific inquiries while slashing overhead costs for the firm and the client. Ron Hamm, CEO of Hamm Consulting and another early adopter of this model, explained to me (as he does to potential clients) that his partnership framework ensures clients aren’t paying for lobbyists they don’t use.
This approach creates substantive engagement with clients and their needs. The small lobbying firm’s size is its greatest asset.
The expert you meet during your consultation is often the same one who will lead your advocacy. Clients can expect direct top-tier representation in which their priorities are the firm’s priorities. When circumstances change, a small firm can pivot quickly, unencumbered by bureaucracy or approvals from organization leaders whose attention may be divided.
The financial factor is perhaps the most compelling reason to consider a smaller firm. Traditional federal lobbying retainers often are out of reach for “the little guy.” They come with price tags that can dissuade organizations with tight budgetary constraints.
Smaller firms with less overhead can offer lower, more flexible rates that are ideal for clients who need professional representation—but also must justify expenses to taxpayers, donors, or boardroom leadership.
A limited budget doesn’t have to mean a limited voice or service. Small and solo firms are offering high-impact advocacy in an alternative model. The industry of influence has firms of all shapes and sizes. Just as every American can find a representative in Congress, every interested stakeholder can find an advocate to fit their needs.
This article does not necessarily reflect the opinion of Bloomberg Industry Group, Inc., the publisher of Bloomberg Law, Bloomberg Tax, and Bloomberg Government, or its owners.
Author Information
Shirley Speidell is director of government affairs for Strategics Consulting.
Write for Us: Author Guidelines
To contact the editors responsible for this story: