What evidence did the Texas Observer publish connecting Crowds on Demand to Monty Bennett and Dallas Justice Now?
Executive summary
The Texas Observer reported that its investigation tied Crowds on Demand to Monty Bennett and to front groups like Dallas Justice Now by publishing interviews, internal messages and emails, corporate filings, and pattern-of-coverage analysis that together suggest Bennett (and his company Ashford) contracted or worked with Crowds on Demand to seed a network of astroturf groups; the Observer also relied on sources who said they had seen messages between Bennett and operatives and on document reviews [1] [2] [3]. The reporting includes direct claims, corroborating public records and third‑party analysis, while also recording denials and alternative explanations from people named in the story [4] [1].
1. The core claim: Crowds on Demand built groups linked to Bennett
The Observer’s central factual line is that Monty Bennett and a California protest‑for‑hire firm, Crowds on Demand, “seeded a local network of right‑leaning astroturf advocacy groups,” naming Keep Dallas Safe and Dallas Justice Now among them [2] [5]. That allegation is presented as the result of the paper’s reporting rather than a legal finding [2].
2. Interviews and witness claims: messages and firsthand statements
The Observer published interviews with an operative known as Taylor who, while affiliated with Crowds on Demand, told the paper he had been shown messages between Swart (an operative) and Bennett and that “Monty Bennett was the main backer” of Keep Dallas Safe; Taylor said Bennett or his companies provided financing for Dallas Justice Now and other groups [1] [4]. The Observer frames these interview claims as key testimonial evidence connecting Bennett to the groups [1].
3. Documents and emails the Observer says it reviewed
Beyond interviews, the Observer states it reviewed emails and documents that tied activities to Bennett—language in its reporting cites “emails and documents reviewed by the Observer” when describing links among Keep Dallas Safe, Dallas Justice Now and Bennett’s funding [1] [2]. The specifics of those documents (full texts, metadata, chain of custody) are described by the Observer as part of its investigative package but are not reproduced in full in the summaries available here [1].
4. Public records and digital‑forensics corroboration
The Observer supplemented witness and document claims with analyses of corporate registrations and social accounts: it notes Delaware registrations for several of the groups and flags anomalous social‑media follower patterns for Dallas Justice Now—analysis by a digital marketing expert cited by the paper who said many DJN Twitter followers appeared to be newly created or inactive accounts [3]. The paper also points to a pattern in which Bennett’s Dallas Express repeatedly amplified the groups’ content [3] [6].
5. Admissions and contemporaneous reporting cited by others
Other outlets and summaries referenced by coverage of the Observer story note that Bennett’s company Ashford acknowledged hiring Crowds on Demand in related contexts, and that the Observer and other local reporters documented incidents—such as actors allegedly hired to protest outside D Magazine—that the Observer attributes to Crowds on Demand work for Bennett [7] [8]. The Observer’s allegation that Crowds on Demand was contracted by Bennett is echoed in several secondary writeups [9] [10].
6. Denials, caveats and limits the Observer recorded
The Observer also records denials and alternative accounts: Dallas HERO figures and some named organizers dispute ongoing operational control (Salahuddin saying she only helped early conception and does not lead Dallas Justice Now) and other local actors such as Marocco told the paper they were not affiliated and had never heard of Crowds on Demand [1] [4]. The Observer’s conclusions rest on its interviews, documents and pattern evidence rather than on a court finding, and the summaries available here do not include the full evidentiary appendix the paper reviewed [1] [2].
7. How strong is the connection, per the Observer’s presentation?
Taken together, the Observer presents testimonial evidence (former operative statements), documentary evidence (emails and records it reviewed), corroborating public filings and digital analysis that create a convergent case linking Crowds on Demand’s activities to Bennett’s network and to groups like Dallas Justice Now; the story also transparently reports denials and acknowledges remaining questions about the precise legal or financial arrangements that a court or direct document disclosure would definitively prove [1] [2] [3].