Rent-a-crowd CEO lifts lid on US protest industry's ‘dirty secrets'
Swart, who founded Crowds on Demand in 2012, revealed what was described as the 'dirty secrets' of his profession in an interview with Fox News on Tuesday. His company recruits and manages individuals who appear at rallies, protests, and public events on behalf of paying clients.
Swart argued that compensating activists is not unethical. He said the service allows people to engage in causes they support but might not otherwise be able to attend.
'All activism is what I call incentivized activism,' he said. 'We compensate people for having their views known, but most people who attend demonstrations have some reason for being there other than the so-called purity of their beliefs.'
Swart offered examples to bolster his claim, including the 2020 Black Lives Matter protests.
'How many real housewives went out to protest for [the Black Lives Matter campaign] in the summer of 2020?' he said. 'Do you think it's because they cared about institutional racism? Or do you think it's to flex on social media?'
He added that labor unions sometimes pressure members to attend demonstrations, with threats of less favorable work shifts, and political aides are often expected to take part in campaign events during their personal time.
Paid demonstrators typically earn several hundred dollars per day, according to Swart. Nationwide publicity campaigns, he said, can cost millions. He noted that he recently turned down a $20 million offer from political interests opposed to US President Donald Trump.
Swart emphasized that his rejection of the offer was not driven by ideology but by concerns that the campaign's likely failure would damage his firm's reputation.
'The problem is that these are the same consultant class who propped up [former US President Joe] Biden, who propped up [former Vice President] Kamala Harris, who fundamentally failed so miserably in the 2024 election, and who have failed every single day since then in reigning in Trump's agenda,' he said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Russia Today
2 hours ago
- Russia Today
US Democrats have worst poll numbers since Clinton era
Public approval of the US Democratic Party has fallen to its lowest level in more than three decades, according to a new Wall Street Journal poll, which also shows voters expressing greater confidence in Republicans on most major policy issues. The survey, conducted July 16-20 among 1,500 registered voters, found that 33% viewed the party favorably, while 63% expressed an unfavorable opinion. It marks the worst rating for Democrats in the Journal's polling since 1990. The Republican Party also received a net negative rating, with 43% viewing it favorably and 54% unfavorably, but the gap was narrower. Voters now say they trust Republicans more than Democrats in Congress on eight out of ten issues polled. The only exceptions are healthcare and vaccine policy. This trust gap has persisted despite broad dissatisfaction with President Donald Trump's handling of key issues. Most respondents disapprove of his management of inflation, the economy, tariffs and foreign policy. Still, Republicans have more support on each of those topics. For example, while Trump received a net disapproval of 11 points on inflation, the GOP was preferred over Democrats by 10 points on the issue. The survey results point to a major shift in political alignment. In 2017, more voters identified as Democrats than Republicans by six points. The latest poll shows Republicans leading by one point and holding a consistent advantage for more than a year. Following his 2024 election victory, Trump claimed that American voters had rejected the 'radical left.' He has also repeatedly accused former President Joe Biden and other Democrats of alienating voters by prioritizing 'open border policies,' transgender rights, and critical race theory over national security and economic stability. The new polling figures come as Republicans prepare for next year's midterm elections, where they face the challenge of defending a narrow 219–212 majority in the House of Representatives. Some within Trump's orbit have warned that internal divisions could erode the party's support. Steve Bannon, the president's former strategist, has said that backlash over Trump's handling of the Epstein case could fracture the MAGA base and cost the GOP up to 40 House seats in 2026.
Russia Today
19 hours ago
- Russia Today
Trump may fast-track sanctions on Russia
New sanctions against Russia and its trade partners could come before a previously declared deadline for settling the Ukraine conflict, US President Donald Trump suggested on Friday. Speaking to reporters outside the White House before embarking on a trip to Scotland, Trump said that secondary sanctions, which would impose tariffs on countries and entities doing business with Russia, could be expedited. 'It could be that we'll have to put secondary sanctions on,' Trump stated. Asked whether the sanctions could materialize before the 50-day deadline to end the Ukraine conflict runs out on September 3, the US president said he could 'maybe' opt to do so. Moscow has previously said that Trump's new sanctions threats serve primarily 'as signals to continue war' for Kiev and urged the US to put pressure on Ukraine instead. Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov said that the 'hypothetical arrival' of secondary sanctions would not impact Moscow's policy and that Russia would 'continue to move along our independent, sovereign, and sustained path.' The US president also insisted a meeting between Russian President Vladimir Putin and Ukraine's leader, Vladimir Zelensky, would eventually happen. Trump did not provide a timeframe on when that might occur. 'It's going to happen. But it should have happened three months ago. It's going to happen,' he told reporters. Moscow has insisted that a potential Putin-Zelensky meeting should only deal with final agreements rather than preliminary discussions. Speaking to reporters earlier on Friday, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said that the groundwork had to be laid first. 'A summit meeting can and should put a final point in the settlement and record the modalities and agreements that are to be developed in the course of expert work. It is impossible to do the opposite,' Peskov stressed.
Russia Today
20 hours ago
- Russia Today
‘Russiagate', revenge, and the rotten core of US power
Be real: It is not hard to see that America – as it really exists, not the 'dream' version – is neither a democracy nor a country with genuine rule of law. That's because democracy worth the label is impossible, for starters, with elections awash in private money and a bizarre Electoral College making sure that Americans do not, actually, have votes of even numerically equal weight when electing their single most powerful official, the president. The rule of law can only exist where citizens are equal before laws that apply to everyone in the same, just manner. This is a challenge everywhere, but the US is an almost comically egregious case of legal bias, obscurantism (masquerading as limitlessly re-interpretable case law), and inequality by status, wealth, ethnicity, and skin color. Just ask that crackhead, porn addict, and shady 'businessman' from an infamous clan, who is currently not in prison but giving expletive-laden interviews instead. The US, simply put, does not operate the way it claims to operate. It takes an extraordinary amount of naivete – on the scale of believing in Santa Claus or an honest Vladimir Zelensky – not to notice that much. What is more difficult to figure out is how politics and power actually do work in America and, most of all, who is really in charge. We have, for example, recently witnessed a presidency in which a severely senescent Joe Biden claimed to be but clearly could not be in command. So, who was? And who is in general? That, ultimately, is perhaps the single most disturbing question raised by recent developments around the rotting corpse of 'Russiagate' (aka Russia Rage). In its heyday – between 2016 and about 2020 – 'Russiagate' was the shorthand for a conspiracy theory that dominated US politics and mainstream media, causing mass hysteria. Its details were exceedingly complicated but its core was extremely simple: the claims that Russia had manipulated the American presidential elections of 2016, that it had done so to facilitate the first victory of Donald Trump, and finally that Donald Trump's team had colluded with Russia. The power of this preponderantly factually false and entirely misleading narrative was such that it overshadowed much of Donald Trump's first presidency and contributed greatly to a catastrophic and very dangerous decline in the always challenging relationship with Russia. Indeed, there even is a plausible connection to be made between the mass madness of 'Russiagate' and the reckless policy of provoking and waging a proxy war against Russia in Ukraine. 'Russiagate,' in other words, did not only harm the US; it harmed the whole world. In that respect, think of it as the political equivalent of the 2008 US banking crisis: the mess was American, the fallout global. Now, Trump is back for a second term and bent on revenge against his detractors not only but especially over 'Russiagate.' In his usual refreshingly candid style, he has announced that 'it is time to go after people,' fingered former president Barrack Obama for 'treason,' and gleefully shared an AI-generated video showing Obama being arrested in the White House. Just before that typical Trump outburst, his Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, released a freshly declassified report – produced in early 2017 by the intelligence committee of the House of Representatives – that addresses what really happened in 2016 when 'Russiagate' was initially invented. This release was clearly meant to be a sensation: Gabbard accompanied it with press statements and a detailed thread of X posts bringing out its most explosive aspects. Among them, the key finding is that Russia did not work to make Trump president. Boom: the basis of 'Russiagate' gone, just like that. And who was to blame? Gabbard made clear that 'Russiagate' was not a cluster-fiasco born of mere incompetence but a monster intentionally produced and carefully nurtured. She accused 'top national security officials,' including FBI Director James Comey, CIA Director John Brennan, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper as well as Obama himself of deliberately creating and spreading the impression of Russian election meddling in favor of Trump by manipulating the actual, contradictory findings of the intelligence agencies. Gabbard used strong language: a 'coup' against Trump, the 'weaponization of intelligence,' a 'treasonous conspiracy,' and a 'betrayal concerning every American.' Those mainstream media, such as the New York Times, that are among the worst offenders in spreading the 'Russiagate' hoax have already pounced on this language to, in essence, pooh-pooing Gabbard's charges as hyperbolical. Don't fall for that deflection. Gabbard's way of presenting her case does have a political edge. Of course it does. Duh. And if they wish, the old 'Russiagaters' can nitpick over her terms to their heart's content. But that makes no difference to the fact that what has happened is an enormous blight on US politics, implicating the intelligence services as well as other state agencies, the media, and, indeed, former President Obama. Gabbard may be laying it on a little thick (or not, actually), but even without any embellishment, the fabrication of 'Russiagate' was the real, humungous scandal. And it must be dealt with at long last. Dealing with it is where several measures already taken point: A Justice Department 'strike force' has been set up; the current CIA director John Ratcliffe has, in essence, denounced his predecessor John Brennan to the FBI; and the current FBI director Kash Patel has opened an investigation into his predecessor James Comey. The knives are out. Or so it seems. It is always satisfying to see a big fat lie punctured and deflated. But there is, unfortunately, little reason to celebrate. For one thing, it is unlikely that many of those who concocted and spread 'Russiagate' will actually face real consequences. That is just not how the US works: its 'elites' have a record of impunity only rivaled by those of Israel. Obama, in particular, is certain to be safe: Ironically, he is now protected by the same extraordinary legal privilege that the Supreme Court has conjured up for Trump. And where one team of manipulators has lost its grip, another one is already showing its mettle. Because in one respect even the New York Times has a point: one reason for at least the timing of escalation in Trump's revenge campaign is that it is meant to distract us from that other horrific scandal, associated with the name of convicted pedophile, suspected intelligence agent and blackmailer, and very, very dubious suicide victim Jeffrey Epstein. The same Trump officials now in high dudgeon over 'Russiagate,' have shown no independence of mind, professionalism, or commitment to truth and the public welfare, when helping Trump evade full transparency for the Epstein files, in which his name also appears. Finally, even while revealing that 'Russiagate' was a hoax, Gabbard – and the House intelligence report she had declassified – still tried to blame Moscow. It's a tricky operation: Now, we are supposed to stop accusing Russia and its President Vladimir Putin of helping Trump – and Trump of profiting from such help – but we are still asked to believe that they had nothing better to do than 'undermine faith in the US democratic process.' Where to even begin? There is no democratic process in the plutocratic US. Even a Princeton University study has long acknowledged that America is not a democracy. In reality, there only is an obstinate and, frankly, brazen pretense of such a process; and maybe some people still believe in it. But it really does not take Russia or any other outside forces to make sure that many do not. That loss of faith in a thing that isn't there is entirely made in America. Maybe one day, America's establishment – of all flavors – will learn to stop childishly blaming others, be it their predecessors (who usually deserve it) or foreigners (who often don't deserve it) and face its very own responsibility. But I would not bet on it. Cowardice, careerism, and hypocrisy run too deep. Most likely, there will never be true justice. Only tit-for-tat retaliation. On the other hand, if that's the only thing on offer, bring it on: I, for one, will take it.
