Did the Texas Observer report evidence that Adam Swart, CEO of Crowds on Demand, directly issued orders to people he claimed were independent contractors
Executive summary
The Texas Observer’s 2024 coverage, as summarized in secondary sources, reported that hotelier Monty Bennett hired Crowds on Demand to build an advocacy network in Dallas, but the available reporting does not document the Texas Observer presenting direct evidence that CEO Adam Swart personally issued operational orders to individuals the company describes as independent contractors [1]. Existing public reporting and Crowds on Demand’s own statements describe a company that recruits and scripts participants and that claims a nationwide pool of contractors, but those materials stop short of showing the Texas Observer proved Swart gave direct, individual orders [2] [1].
1. What the Texas Observer story is reported to have said: client hiring and advocacy networks
Secondary summaries indicate the Texas Observer reported Monty Bennett hired Crowds on Demand to create a network of advocacy groups in Dallas to influence local politics, a claim repeated in reference entries about the company [1]. That reporting frames the story around client-funded advocacy and the company’s role facilitating organized public activity rather than a granular claim about Swart personally directing named workers on specific tasks [1].
2. What Crowds on Demand publicly admits about its operation and scripting
Adam Swart and his firm have publicly acknowledged that Crowds on Demand supplies people for events and sometimes uses scripts — Swart has been quoted saying some roles were scripted and that “they told me what to say,” a statement reflected in reporting summarized by reference sources [1]. The company also markets itself as providing crowds, PR stunts and advocacy services and claims a large network of independent contractors across the country, which frames how work is procured and assigned through the firm rather than via documented one-off personal orders from Swart [2] [3].
3. The difference between company direction and evidence of direct orders by Swart
There is an important distinction between evidence that a firm organized and scripted participants and evidence that its CEO personally issued orders to named contractors: the former is supported by multiple sources describing Crowds on Demand’s business model and Swart’s acknowledgement of scripted work [1] [2], while the latter — specific, attributable directives from Swart to specific individuals labeled as independent contractors — is not shown in the Texas Observer reference cited in these materials [1]. Public summaries do not cite internal memos, recorded directives, or testimony published by the Texas Observer that would directly demonstrate Swart issuing individualized commands to workers he called contractors [1].
4. What the available reporting does document and what it does not
Available reporting documents that Crowds on Demand is hired by clients to produce crowds and that the company claims many contractors and sometimes uses scripts [2] [1]. What is not documented in the cited summaries is a Texas Observer-sourced chain of evidence — such as contracts, emails, or eyewitness testimony attributed to that outlet — showing Swart personally instructing or micromanaging named contractors in a way that overrides their independent-contractor status [1] [2]. If the Texas Observer did publish such evidentiary material, it is not present in the sources provided here.
5. Alternative interpretations and possible implicit agendas
Interpretations split between critics who call the service “astroturfing” and the company’s defense that it is a transparent business providing professional advocacy — critics emphasize the ethical and democratic implications of paid crowds while Swart and other company statements stress client confidentiality and bipartisan claims, an implicit agenda to protect business relationships and reputational positioning [2] [4]. The Texas Observer’s focus on client influence in Dallas could reflect an investigative intent to expose networked influence; meanwhile Crowds on Demand’s public statements emphasize choreography and contractor status, which complicates claims about direct CEO orders unless concrete evidence is shown [1] [2].
6. Bottom line for the core question
Based on the reporting available in these sources, the Texas Observer is reported to have documented client hiring of Crowds on Demand for local advocacy work but did not, in the materials provided, present direct evidence that Adam Swart personally issued orders to people the company labeled independent contractors; existing sources show company-level scripting and recruitment practices but not the specific, attributable directives the question asks about [1] [2]. If there are Texas Observer documents or citations beyond these summaries that establish direct commands, they are not included in the supplied reporting and therefore cannot be affirmed here.