Has Crowds on Demand been involved in any notable 2024 election-related events?
Executive summary
Crowds on Demand surfaced in 2024 coverage as a player at the intersection of paid publicity, local political influence and national protest debates, most notably via reporting that the firm was hired to build advocacy networks in Dallas and through public commentary about demonstrations around the Democratic National Convention in Chicago [1] [2]. The firm’s CEO also told reporters the company received — and in many cases declined — a large number of requests to amplify Israel-related protests in 2024, framing the company as a sought-but-selective contractor in election-adjacent public agitation [3] [2].
1. The Dallas story: alleged local political influence by a donor and a publicity firm
Reporting summarized on Wikipedia and drawn from the Texas Observer indicates that hotelier and Republican donor Monty Bennett hired Crowds on Demand in 2024 to build a network of advocacy groups aimed at influencing local Dallas politics, a move that connects the company directly to an explicit electoral-influence project rather than merely commercial PR work [1]. That same reporting traces links between projects attributed to Crowds on Demand — including the pro-police Keep Dallas Safe and the hoax group Dallas Justice Now — showing how paid-organizing capabilities can be deployed in local civic contests and generate national controversy when exposed [1].
2. The DNC protests and the company’s public posture
During the 2024 Democratic National Convention in Chicago, Adam Swart, Crowds on Demand’s founder and CEO, was interviewed about protesters and paid crowds, and he told The Media Line the company had declined offers to amplify either side of the Israel–Palestine debate around the convention, saying the work would not be constructive [2]. That episode places the company in election-circling media coverage not because it was visibly running campaign rallies, but because its founder became a source explaining how the firm approaches politically charged requests during a major party event [2].
3. Claims of demand, refusals, and the “we don’t take sides” line
InfluenceWatch and other outlets reported that Crowds on Demand stated it turned down more than 100 requests related to anti-Israel demonstrations in 2024, and the organization markets itself as non‑partisan while typically not revealing clients — a posture that frames the company as both a sought-after vendor and one attempting to shield client identities [3]. That public refusal narrative functions strategically: it signals discretion and limits reputational fallout while acknowledging the scale of demand for paid crowd services during a fraught political year [3].
4. Historical context and company capabilities that make it relevant to elections
Crowds on Demand’s catalog of services — from paid protesters and supporters to long-term advocacy campaigns for local races — has long made it potentially useful to campaigns and interest groups, and the company itself has acknowledged working more often on local contests where turnout is low and influence can be magnified [4] [5]. Past controversies tied to astroturfing accusations and prior media stories about staged political activity explain why any 2024 involvement — even limited or declined work — attracts attention: the company sits at a well-worn fault line between legitimate event staffing and manipulation of public perception [1] [4].
5. What the record does — and does not — show about 2024 election events
Available reporting documents at least one specific, notable 2024 election‑adjacent involvement: the Texas Observer-linked disclosure that Crowds on Demand was hired by a Republican donor to build advocacy networks in Dallas, an act presented as an attempt to influence local politics [1]. Beyond that, public interviews and company statements show heavy inbound interest around the DNC and Israel-related protests and numerous reported refusals, but public records in the supplied reporting do not comprehensively catalogue all clients or deployments nationwide in 2024, and some allegations about Charlottesville-era involvement were contested or found inaccurate in other reporting [3] [1]. Where narrative gaps exist, the company’s customary nondisclosure of clients limits independent verification of the full extent of 2024 election-related activity [3] [5].