Adam Stewart, the CEO of Crowds on Demand, a California-based company known for providing professional actors for events and protests, has made a significant decision to reject a $20 million contract. This contract was intended to supply personnel for Democrat-supported anti-Trump demonstrations. In an interview with NewsNation on Tuesday, Stewart explicitly mentioned the potential for violence and questioned the effectiveness of such protests as reasons for his company’s refusal to take part.
The “Good Trouble Lives On” demonstrations, scheduled for July 17, are set to continue the momentum from previous anti-Trump organizing efforts. Despite the lucrative nature of the offer, Stewart expressed his conviction that accepting the contract would not be productive. He stated, “We rejected an offer that probably is worth around $20 million,” highlighting his concerns about the demonstrations' potential impact and the safety of participants.
While Stewart refrained from revealing the identity of the offering party or the timing of the proposal, he stood firm on his stance regarding safety concerns. Crowds on Demand operates across the United States, specializing in creating artificial grassroots support for various causes and individuals. Their expertise extends to advocacy campaigns, public relations stunts, crowds for hire, and corporate events. The company prides itself on its ability to rapidly mobilize passionate leaders and actors to major metropolitan areas.
Their promotional materials boast of a proven track record in delivering successful campaigns and handling complex event logistics with agility. “We’ve made campaigns involving hundreds of people come alive in just days,” the company's website claims.
Previous demonstrations, such as the “No Kings” protests, which were organized in defense of anti-ICE riots in Los Angeles, had attracted significant financial support. Reports indicate that these demonstrations were backed by hundreds of millions of dollars from various progressive political circles, including far-left organizations like Indivisible and wealthy Democratic Party financiers, one being Walmart heiress Christy Walton.
Footage from the “No Kings Day” demonstrations depicted a predominantly elderly demographic among the protesters, with most attendees appearing to be in their 60s or 70s. Stewart's decision to turn down the $20 million offer has sparked conversations about the ethical implications of paid participation in political protests and the potential consequences of such practices.
The rejection of this contract by Crowds on Demand may serve as a precedent for similar businesses and raises questions about the nature of organized demonstrations. As the political climate in the United States continues to be polarized, the role of companies like Crowds on Demand in shaping public perception and activism is increasingly scrutinized.
In conclusion, Stewart's choice to decline the contract underscores a complex dilemma facing organizations that offer services which may influence political outcomes. It also invites a broader discussion about the authenticity and legitimacy of grassroots movements when financial incentives are involved.
