Did a former Dallas Justice Now employee admit to working for Crowds on Demand

1. What the strongest reporting actually says about Crowds on Demand and Dallas Justice Now

Investigative reporting in the Texas Observer presents evidence tying Crowds on Demand to a network of groups involved in the Dallas HERO fight, relying heavily on claims from a former Crowds on Demand contractor, internal documents the Observer reviewed, and prior reporting that Monty Bennett had paid the firm for operations tied to local campaigns ^{[1] [2]}. Steven Monacelli’s reporting also frames Dallas Justice Now as part of an astroturf operation created or amplified by Crowds on Demand and by outlets linked to Bennett, a narrative the Observer and Monacelli have repeatedly advanced ^{[3] [1]}.

2. Where the narrative of an “admission” comes up — and why it’s not the same as a first‑hand confession

The chain of attribution in the Observer’s reporting leans on a former Crowds contractor saying the firm worked on projects tied to Bennett and on internal materials and emails reviewed by reporters; these sources support the claim that Crowds on Demand was engaged to manufacture or stage local groups, but they are not direct quotations in the public record of a former Dallas Justice Now employee saying “I worked for Crowds on Demand” ^{[1] [2]}. Monacelli’s account and the Observer’s findings present circumstantial and documentary evidence rather than a verbatim, on‑the‑record admission from a DJN staffer ^{[3] [1]}.

3. Statements from people associated with Dallas Justice Now complicate a simple admission narrative

Individuals identified with Dallas Justice Now have offered defensive or qualifying statements: one named figure, Salahuddin, said she “was involved to an extent in the beginning” of Dallas Justice Now’s conception but that she does not currently lead or manage the campaign and disputed that the group is a “hoax,” while describing herself as a small business owner with a PR firm under contract ^{[1] [2]}. Those statements, published in the Observer and elsewhere, are explicit denials of being a Crowds on Demand operative and do not constitute admissions of employment by Crowds ^{[1] [2]}.

4. Independent skepticism and prior debunking of Dallas Justice Now’s authenticity

Multiple outlets and fact‑checking projects previously flagged Dallas Justice Now as likely inauthentic or a hoax: Snopes and local coverage raised doubts about the group’s provenance, incorporation status, and the provenance of its controversial “college pledge” materials, and local press like People Newspapers and D Magazine questioned the group’s assertions and advisory roster ^{[4] [5] [6]}. Those pieces bolster the Observer’s broader theory that outside actors may have manufactured or amplified DJN, but they too stop short of documenting a clear, on‑the‑record confession by a former DJN employee that they worked for Crowds ^{[4] [5] [6]}.

5. Conclusion and what remains unproven in the record

Based on the reporting available here, the stronger, sourced claims are that Crowds on Demand worked for clients linked to Monty Bennett and that former Crowds contractors and documents tie the firm to the creation or promotion of local groups; the record does not include an explicit, documented admission from a former Dallas Justice Now employee that they personally worked for Crowds on Demand. Public denials from people associated with DJN about leading the group or being a hoax further complicate any assertion of admission ^{[1] [2] [3]}. If a direct, on‑the‑record confession exists, it is not present in the materials supplied; reporting instead contains attribution, documentary links, contractor testimony, and contested denials.