How has Crowds on Demand been used in U.S. political campaigns and local meetings?
Executive summary
Crowds on Demand has supplied paid attendees, scripted speakers and staged demonstrations for clients ranging from corporate PR teams to political campaigns, a practice that sources describe as both a marketing service offered by the firm and a controversial form of astroturfing when used in political contexts [1] [2]. Public reporting documents specific local incidents and company claims, while public records and journalism show limited transparency about most political clients and frequent debate about the ethics of buying apparent grassroots support [3] [4].
1. What the business sells and how it pitches politics
The company markets itself as a turnkey provider of “protests, rallies and advocacy,” promising to staff events, supply speakers to council meetings, and create publicity stunts—services the firm says it delivers nationwide and even for some international clients [5] [1]. Crowds on Demand’s founder and CEO has publicly described using small, orchestrated demonstrations to win earned media for clients and framed the work as standard guerrilla marketing and lobbying rather than pure political manipulation [6] [1].
2. Documented uses in local meetings and city councils
Reporting has tied the company to local meeting theater: NBC Los Angeles documented a 2015 Camarillo city council appearance in which a man later said his remarks were scripted by the company, and news investigations have identified paid speakers in New Orleans council hearings ostensibly supporting a power plant project [3] [7]. Those cases show a pattern in which paid participants present themselves as “concerned citizens” at hearings and public meetings—raising questions about disclosure and the authenticity of public input [3] [7].
3. Use in political campaigns and national events—claims versus proof
Adam Swart has claimed the firm worked with “dozens of campaigns” and even presidential candidates, and the company has acknowledged experimenting with staged protests around elections, but public records disclosures of campaign expenditures are sparse—California filings identified only the Six Californias campaign as a documented client in one state’s records [4] [3]. InfluenceWatch and other outlets report the company drew political attention early and that it sells services to clients on both sides of issues, but independent verification of high-profile campaign clients is limited in the public record [2] [4].
4. The ethical and political debate about “bought” crowds
Critics call the practice astroturfing—manufacturing the appearance of grassroots support by paying people to attend or speak—and scholars and columnists have warned it can deepen cynicism about civic life and distort policymaking [2] [4]. The company and its CEO argue the work is a form of legitimate advocacy and public relations and point to non-political event work and claimed successes for corporate and advocacy clients as evidence the model is a standard marketing service [6] [1].
5. Legal, reputational and accountability limits
There are few regulatory hurdles that specifically forbid paying people to attend a rally or speak at a meeting, but campaign finance and disclosure laws can apply to political expenditures and public records indicate limited compliance reportage in some jurisdictions [3]. The firm’s tendency not to disclose clients and the sporadic nature of documented cases mean journalists and researchers can only partially reconstruct how often and with what effect paid crowds are used in campaigns and local decision-making [3] [2].
6. Bottom line: a tool with contested public impact
Available reporting shows Crowds on Demand operates at the intersection of PR, political advocacy and local meeting theater—supplying actors, scripted speakers and organized participants whose presence has influenced local hearings and generated media attention while sparking debate about transparency and the ethics of simulated grassroots movements [1] [7] [3]. Definitive claims about the company’s role in large-scale national campaigns are limited by the firm’s client secrecy and spotty public records, leaving open important questions for reporters, regulators and voters [4] [2].