How have private companies like Crowds on Demand been documented working for political campaigns in the U.S.?
Executive summary
Private firms such as Crowds on Demand have been repeatedly documented offering paid actors and organized “crowds” to political campaigns, advocacy efforts, corporate clients, and government events — a business model the company’s founder openly described as political marketing and perception management [1] [2]. Reporting shows campaigns have sought these services to inflate turnout, stage protests against opponents, or manufacture visible support, while the company and some clients often remain shielded by non-disclosure or denials, leaving gaps in accountability [1] [3].
1. Origins and stated services: how the industry sells political optics
Crowds on Demand was founded in 2012 by Adam Swart as a publicity firm that supplies actors to play fans, paparazzi, security, and protesters for events in political hotspots such as Iowa, New Hampshire, New York and Washington, D.C., and the company explicitly markets advocacy and protest services on its website [1] [4]. Swart has framed the work as “cultivating perception” and described political clients contacting the firm to boost campaign optics — language that positions the business as marketing rather than political consultancy [1] [2].
2. Documented campaign uses and specific allegations
Multiple investigative and mainstream outlets have reported that political campaigns have used paid crowds to bolster appearances or pressure opponents: The Atlantic and CNN documented candidates and campaigns seeking hired crowds for rallies and opposition protests [1] [2], while public records and reporting tie the firm to at least one named campaign—Six Californias—and to a disputed New York Post claim about paid actors at Anthony Weiner events, which Weiner denied [5] [3]. Reporting also links the firm indirectly to efforts on behalf of corporate and local political matters, such as orchestrated support for a utility project in New Orleans through subcontractors, according to ethnographic and media investigations [6].
3. How the work is delivered — tactics, geography and scale
Journalistic profiles and the company’s own materials describe a menu of services from quick-turnaround street demonstrations and flash mobs to sustained weeklong protest campaigns, with price estimates and claims that thousands have applied to be “crowd actors,” concentrated where professional actors are available [7] [1]. The firm has said it can mobilize crowds on short notice in major cities and early-state campaign locales, and media accounts cite uses across federal, state, and local contests as well as corporate and foreign-government PR tasks [1] [4] [2].
4. Transparency gaps, denials, and legal exposure
Swart and Crowds on Demand typically decline to name clients; Swart has said revealing clients would threaten future business, creating a persistent opacity that prevents full verification of political work [1] [5]. This secrecy has produced controversy: critics accuse the firm of enabling astroturfing and deceptive political theater, and at least one lawsuit has accused the company of participating in manufactured negative publicity, highlighting reputational and legal risks [8].
5. Reactions, ethics, and political consequences
Academics and watchdogs warn that paid crowds can erode public trust in genuine grassroots mobilization and make citizens cynical about political expression [3] [2], while the company defends its services as professional event management and points to legitimate demand from diverse clients [9] [4]. The reporting reveals a tension between commercial PR practices and democratic norms: when paid participation is undisclosed, civic rituals like rallies and public testimony can be reframed as consumable spectacles rather than signs of authentic public will [6] [1].
6. What is documented versus what remains uncertain
The record shows extensive marketing, media interviews, and multiple documented projects and allegations linking Crowds on Demand to political activity and corporate campaigns [1] [2] [6], but journalists and researchers repeatedly note limits: the firm’s refusal to identify many clients means that specific campaign-by-campaign accountability is often unverified, and some high-profile allegations (for example, some claims in the New York Post) are disputed by named individuals [5] [3]. That opacity is central to understanding both the company’s operations and the difficulty of fully cataloguing private crowd work in U.S. politics.
Conclusion
Reporting across mainstream outlets, investigative pieces, and the company’s own promotion consistently documents that private crowd firms like Crowds on Demand have been used by political campaigns to manufacture visible support or opposition, but the combination of deliberate secrecy, subcontracting, and contested anecdotes leaves a partial record that fuels ethical debate and watchdog concern about astroturfing and democratic transparency [1] [8] [6].