Which high‑profile political campaigns have been publicly linked to paid crowd services like Crowds on Demand?

1. Confirmed, documentable engagements: the “Six Californias” record

The clearest public record tying Crowds on Demand to a political effort is the payment identified for the Six Californias campaign, which public records show hired the firm—this is cited in reporting that notes the company otherwise rarely discloses clients ^[1].

2. High‑profile U.S. campaigns frequently alleged but not independently verified

Several high‑visibility allegations circulated in the press and on social media—most notably a New York Post claim that Anthony Weiner paid actors to attend rallies during his 2013 mayoral bid—but those claims sit in reportage and allegation rather than in universally corroborated public records presented by independent outlets ^[1]. Company founder Adam Swart has repeatedly said Crowds on Demand has “worked with dozens of campaigns for state officials, and 2016 presidential candidates,” but he has declined to identify specific campaigns for business reasons, leaving such assertions unverified ^{[1] [2]}.

3. The company’s own claims and marketing blur the line between client lists and publicity stunts

Crowds on Demand’s marketing materials and interviews with its founder promote services for rallies, demonstrations and “celebrity” appearances across major political battlegrounds and claim work in multiple U.S. cities and even international placements, which the company frames as normal PR and advocacy work rather than clandestine political wiring ^{[5] [6]}. These self‑descriptions confirm capacity and willingness to serve political actors, but they do not equate to a transparent roster of “high‑profile” political campaigns ^[5].

4. International contracts and legal cases that implicate political maneuvering

Beyond U.S. campaign chatter, reporting documents a lawsuit and related allegations involving Eastern European political and business disputes: a Czech investor sued, alleging that Crowds on Demand was used in a campaign of harassment tied to political conflicts abroad, illustrating that the firm’s operations have intersected with politically charged disputes outside the U.S. ^[3]. The company’s website itself claims it has worked for a foreign government to bolster receptions at the U.N. General Assembly—a claim the company makes on its public site but that has not been independently documented in mainstream investigative reporting available in this dossier ^[7].

5. Recent allegations and denials in hot‑button U.S. protests—contested territory

During episodes of anti‑ICE demonstrations and “No Kings” marches, social media and some outlets alleged Crowds on Demand supplied paid protesters; reporting captured both the allegation and the company’s denial that it sent activists to Los Angeles because it avoids illegal activity, demonstrating the contested and partisan nature of many modern claims about paid crowds ^[4]. Independent outlets have noted the spread of those claims while also reporting the firm’s denials, leaving readers with competing narratives rather than an evidence‑rich consensus ^[4].

6. Assessment, caveats and the manufacturing‑of‑consent problem

The sober conclusion from available reporting is that Crowds on Demand has verifiably contracted with at least one political initiative (Six Californias) and has been implicated in international political disputes through litigation, while numerous U.S. campaign‑level associations rest on founder claims, single‑source media allegations, or unresolved social‑media assertions rather than on transparent public records ^{[1] [3] [2] [4]}. Because the company declines to publicly list many clients and because media reports vary in corroboration, definitive attribution of “high‑profile political campaigns” beyond the limited documented cases is not supported by the sources provided here ^{[1] [2]}.