How did Adam Swart, CEO of crowds on demand, and Monty Bennett respond to the Texas Observer reporting that showed Bennett hired Crowds on Demand to create astroturf groups

1. Swart’s narrow acknowledgment and contractual framing

When the Texas Observer pressed Crowds on Demand, Adam Swart did not flatly deny that Bennett was a client; instead Swart framed the relationship by pointing to the company’s use of contractors and defended the Dallas operations as normal PR work, emphasizing that Taylor functioned as an independent contractor and later through a PR firm rather than as a Crowds employee ^{[1] [2]}. That positioning echoes the firm’s longstanding posture of non-disclosure about clients and a business model that distinguishes freelance contractors from payroll to limit direct attribution — a posture documented in past reporting and profiles of Crowds on Demand ^{[5] [6]}.

2. Bennett’s partial admission and broader denial

Publicly available summaries of the reporting indicate Monty Bennett conceded that Ashford had contracted Crowds on Demand, but he otherwise pushed back on the Texas Observer’s characterization of a deliberate, coordinated astroturf campaign, denying the more sweeping conclusions of the piece ^[3]. That limited admission — accepting the hiring of a firm while rejecting allegations about deceptive networks — allows Bennett to acknowledge a commercial relationship without conceding intent or the causal claims the Observer attributes to that relationship ^[4].

3. Defensive posture, normalizing tactics, and avoidance of full transparency

Both Swart and Bennett adopted defensive, narrowing rhetorical strategies: Swart normalized the practice as routine PR and emphasized contractor status, while Bennett acknowledged the business relationship but disputed the report’s narrative framing ^{[1] [3]}. These responses align with a pattern tied to Crowds on Demand’s public-facing claims of nonpartisanship and client confidentiality — a playbook that critics say facilitates plausible deniability even when paid organizers appear in public-facing campaigns ^{[6] [5]}.

4. The reporting’s implications and competing interpretations

The Texas Observer’s reporting stitched together evidence of a network — including groups quoted in Bennett-funded outlets like the Dallas Express and organized activity around Dallas charter amendments — to argue that paid organizing and media amplification functioned as astroturfing; Swart’s and Bennett’s responses, as reported, aim to limit legal and reputational exposure by distinguishing contractor status and denying deceptive intent ^{[4] [7]}. Critics and media ethicists cited in the Observer see a pattern of amplification and undisclosed ties that raises ethical questions about transparency and media manipulation, while defenders point to common PR practice and the autonomy of contractors as mitigating factors ^{[7] [5]}.

5. What the available reporting does — and does not — establish about motive and coordination

The record in the provided reporting makes clear that Crowds on Demand was hired and that actors and contractor-organizers were deployed in Dallas-affiliated campaigns, and it documents Bennett’s media investments in the Dallas Express; what the summaries do not supply in full detail are internal, contemporaneous documents from Bennett or Swart explicitly admitting a coordinated deception strategy or revealing every contractual term — therefore Swart’s contractor defense and Bennett’s partial admission cannot, on the available sources alone, be fully adjudicated for intent beyond the factual admissions reported ^{[1] [3] [4]}. The accounts show a contested factual landscape: Observer journalists argue the pattern amounts to astroturfing, while the involved parties have limited their concessions and emphasized normal commercial relationships.