How has Crowds on Demand been used in past U.S. political events and what are documented examples?
Executive summary
Crowds on Demand is a U.S. publicity firm that supplies paid actors and organized groups to appear as fans, protesters, paparazzi, or advocacy networks for clients ranging from corporations to political campaigns, and its work has been documented in news reporting, the company’s own marketing, and watchdog profiles [1] [2] [3]. Reported uses include supplying staged supporters at campaign events, organizing counter-protests or protests on behalf of clients, and building turnkey advocacy groups — with high-profile documented examples and repeated media scrutiny dating back to the company’s founding in 2012 [2] [4] [3].
1. What the company says it does and how reporters have described it
Crowds on Demand presents itself as an advocacy, event and publicity firm that can deliver “impactful advocacy campaigns” and even full advocacy groups with leaders, materials and staffing available nationwide, according to the company site and statements from its founder [1]. Journalistic investigations and business profiles have described that service mix as providing hired crowds for events, staged applause, faux paparazzi and paid protesters, framing the business as an extension of PR and guerrilla lobbying rather than traditional grassroots organizing [2] [5].
2. Documented political uses: campaigns, rallies and staged support
Multiple outlets reported that campaigns and political operatives have used Crowds on Demand to create the appearance of higher turnout or visible support; for example, reporting by the New York Post and follow-up coverage cited claims that Anthony Weiner employed actors for his 2013 New York mayoral campaign to attend and cheer at events [4] [5]. More generally, Adam Swart, the founder, has acknowledged receiving political requests early in the company’s history and described clients asking for both supportive crowds and protests against opponents, which journalists have used to explain the firm’s migration from celebrity PR to political work [5] [2].
3. Creating advocacy networks and the Dallas Justice Now controversy
Investigative reporting has documented the company’s role in assembling broader advocacy structures: the Texas Observer reported that hotelier Monty Bennett hired Crowds on Demand to help create a network of advocacy groups in Dallas, including a hoax local organization called Dallas Justice Now that generated national controversy in 2021 after sending provocative letters aimed at wealthy white families [4]. InfluenceWatch and other profiles likewise note that the company expanded into campaign and event services that go beyond single rallies, enabling clients to scale sustained presence in local politics [3].
4. Limits, denials and the ethics debate
Crowds on Demand’s founder has defended the business as marketing and says the company declines work that is unlawful or hateful, and on occasion the firm publicly refused requests related to Gaza protests after October 7, 2023, according to reporting that quoted the CEO [6] [7]. Media coverage and watchdogs have raised ethical objections — accusing the company of “astroturfing” and warning that hiring actors to simulate grassroots support can deceive the public and erode trust — while the company and its CEO frame the practice as longstanding political theater and public relations ubiquitous in history [3] [7] [2].
5. What is documented, what remains unclear, and how to read the record
Documented examples in mainstream reporting include the Weiner campaign claim and the Dallas advocacy-network reporting, along with numerous profiles and interviews where Swart describes political clients and offers examples of services; these constitute the core, verifiable record of political uses [4] [5] [3]. However, some high-profile allegations — for instance, involvement in specific local protests such as Charlottesville — have been investigated and denied by the company or found unproven in fact-checking, illustrating that reporting can over-attribute paid recruitment to every contentious event and that public records of client lists are limited because the firm often does not disclose clients [8] [3].
6. The broader implications for politics and public discourse
Taken together, the documented record shows a commercially available capability to manufacture visible popular support or opposition that has been used in U.S. political contests and local influence campaigns, prompting commentators and scholars to worry about manipulation of perception and the health of authentic civic engagement, while the company positions itself as a nonpartisan marketing actor that sometimes refuses controversial requests [2] [3] [6]. The debate is thus two-sided: critics emphasize deception and democratic risk, while the company and some observers stress traditional PR practices, client confidentiality, and selective refusal of work as mitigating factors [2] [7].