How did Adam Swart, owner of Crowds on Demand, and Monty Bennett respond to the Texas Observer reporting showing that Bennett hired Swart to create astroturf groups
Executive summary
The Texas Observer reported that Monty Bennett retained Crowds on Demand to seed a network of right-leaning astroturf groups in Dallas; in response Bennett largely did not engage with the Observer’s inquiries, though later accounts say his company acknowledged hiring Crowds on Demand while disputing the report’s broader conclusions [1] [2]. Adam Swart, founder of Crowds on Demand, has historically kept client identities secret and in prior controversies has called allegations against his company meritless, but there is no documented, on-the-record rebuttal from Swart to the Observer story in the provided reporting [3] [4] [1].
1. Bennett’s official posture: limited comment, denied scope, partial admission in other records
When the Texas Observer sought clarification about whether Bennett or his companies funded groups such as Keep Dallas Safe, Bennett “did not respond” to the Observer’s request for further comment, a fact the paper notes repeatedly in its reporting [1] [5]. Separate reporting compiled in these sources indicates that Bennett has elsewhere described his relaunched Dallas Express as “strictly objective” and nonpartisan, even as critics note the site ran numerous pieces amplifying the very groups the Observer identified as part of an astroturf network [6]. Another source in the package states that Bennett—or his company Ashford—admitted hiring Crowds on Demand while otherwise denying the Texas Observer’s findings, suggesting a limited concession on procurement but rejection of the characterization of a coordinated astroturf campaign [2].
2. Swart’s public posture: secrecy as strategy, prior denials of unrelated allegations
Adam Swart and Crowds on Demand have a record of keeping client identities confidential; Swart has said the company “takes great pains to keep his clients’ identities a secret,” a posture the Atlantic and Wikipedia have documented and which aligns with the firm’s business model of arranging staged supporters or events [3]. In earlier public disputes—separate from the Observer’s Dallas reporting—Swart called allegations against his firm “meritless” in at least one legal complaint and issued an emailed statement defending his company, demonstrating a pattern of pushing back when accused in other contexts [4]. The supplied reporting does not include a contemporaneous, on-the-record statement from Swart directly addressing the Texas Observer’s January 2025 reporting [1] [3].
3. How the responses (or silence) map onto the Observer’s evidence and framing
The Observer’s narrative rests on documents, interviews, and patterns of media amplification linking Bennett, Crowds on Demand, the Dallas Express, and several advocacy organizations; the paper documents emails, budget items, and the unusual follower patterns of associated accounts [1] [7]. Bennett’s lack of engagement with follow-up questions left key linkages unchallenged in the record the Observer published, though later reporting noted a limited admission that his company had contracted Crowds on Demand while contesting the larger depiction of a shadow influence network [1] [2]. Swart’s established norm of secrecy and past legal denials explain why the Observer—and these sources—couldn’t produce direct on-record rebuttals from him, even as they cite intermediaries and documents alleging communications between Swart and Bennett [3] [4].
4. Motives, agendas, and what the responses obscure
Bennett’s framing of the Dallas Express as neutral and his legal challenges to critics suggest an intent to legitimize his media investments and blunt reputational harm, while the Observer’s failure to obtain substantive rebuttal from Bennett before publication highlights a classic investigative gap—limited access to the principal subjects [6] [1]. Swart’s commercial incentive to keep clients confidential creates plausible deniability for patrons and complicates public scrutiny; his prior willingness to litigate or call claims meritless shows the firm will contest allegations selectively, but the provided materials do not show whether he did so in this instance [3] [4].
5. What remains unproven in the public record and why it matters
The reporting assembled here documents strong circumstantial links and internal materials that the Observer interprets as evidence of a coordinated astroturf operation, yet the principal actors’ limited on-the-record rebuttals mean some direct contractual or financial threads remain incompletely documented in these sources [1] [8]. That evidentiary gap matters because an outright admission or clear contractual disclosure from Bennett or Swart would materially change legal and ethical judgments; absent that, the Observer’s case rests on internal documents, interviews, and pattern analysis that the subjects have not fully answered in the published record [1] [7].