Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
How transparent is Crowds on Demand about paid protesters in media coverage and public events?
Executive summary
Crowds on Demand publicly offers to staff demonstrations, PR stunts and corporate events and its CEO Adam Swart has in November 2025 urged Congress to pass a “Transparency in Political Demonstration Act” that would require disclosure of who hires demonstrators [1]. Coverage and background reporting show the firm markets both paid crowd services and mediation offerings, but independent public records and past reporting about specific paid political clients are sparse [2] [3].
1. What the company publicly says about its work
Crowds on Demand’s public materials and profiles describe a business that supplies “impactful advocacy campaigns, demonstrations, PR stunts, crowds for hire and corporate events,” and advertises services ranging from paparazzi and red‑carpet experiences to organized rallies and campus mediation programs [1] [4] [3]. Crunchbase and promotional listings reiterate nationwide capacity for demonstrations and related services [5] [4]. That corporate messaging frames the operation as a commercial events/PR firm rather than a clandestine political operator [5].
2. The CEO’s recent push for a transparency law
Adam Swart, identified in recent reporting as Crowds on Demand’s CEO, has publicly called on Congress for a “Transparency in Political Demonstration Act” and has submitted a letter asking lawmakers to require disclosure of who funds and facilitates demonstrations [1] [6]. NewsNation and multiple outlets say they obtained Swart’s November 11 letter and quote him characterizing the proposal as a bipartisan effort to protect free speech while ensuring accountability and safety [1] [7].
3. Media coverage on whether Crowds on Demand discloses clients
Contemporaneous news stories report Swart advocating for disclosure, but they do not document a routine, company‑led public ledger of clients for past events; Wikipedia’s summary of public records notes that only one political campaign — the Six Californias initiative — was found in public payments records, and that Swart has declined in the past to identify clients for fear of losing business [2]. In short, newsroom reporting documents the CEO’s call for legal transparency but does not show that Crowds on Demand currently publishes comprehensive client lists [1] [2].
4. Independent reporting and criticism about “paid protesters” claims
Commentary sites and critics have described the company as a “rent‑a‑mob” or “fake demonstration” operation; an Ethics Alarms piece and partisan blogs have castigated its business model [8] [9]. Those pieces underscore ethical concerns about astroturfing and deception, but the sources included here are opinion and advocacy outlets rather than investigative accounts proving systematic concealment of funders [8] [9].
5. Evidence gaps in public records and investigative reporting
Available sources indicate limited public record evidence that political campaigns paid Crowds on Demand, with the Wikipedia summary noting only one identified campaign payment via public records [2]. The provided news stories focus on Swart’s legislative pitch rather than offering a catalog of past clients or a verification of how often party‑political events are run with paid participants; therefore the public record in these sources is thin on concrete, audited disclosures [1] [2].
6. The company’s stated mitigation and alternative services
Crowds on Demand also promotes non‑deceptive services such as campus protest mediation and standard PR/staffing experiences [3] [4]. Industry profiles note that the firm offers brand ambassador and event staffing products similar to legitimate event‑management businesses, suggesting the company positions parts of its business as conventional and disclosed work [4] [5].
7. Competing perspectives and implicit agendas
Swart’s call for a transparency law can be read two ways in the available reporting: as an admission that funder disclosure is desirable for public accountability, or as a move by a commercial operator to regulate competitors and legitimize paid‑crowd services [1] [6]. Critic outlets frame the firm as ethically problematic and label its services “fake,” while the company’s own materials and the CEO’s letter present the business as professional event services and a pro‑transparency actor seeking legal clarity [8] [1] [5].
8. Bottom line — how transparent is Crowds on Demand today?
Based on the provided reporting, Crowds on Demand publicly markets its services and its CEO is advocating for mandatory disclosure, but there is not robust public evidence in these sources that the company currently maintains or publishes exhaustive client disclosure for political demonstrations; public records cited identify only one campaign payment [1] [2]. Available sources do not mention an existing company practice of proactively listing all political clients or funders absent new legislation [2].
Limitations: this analysis uses only the supplied items; there may be additional investigative reporting, corporate filings, or direct company disclosures not included among these sources that would change the assessment.