Manufacturing Movements: Inside Political Protest

Featuring Adam Swart, founder of Crowds on Demand and one of the nation’s leading experts on organized demonstrations and advocacy campaigns, this episode offers a behind-the-scenes look at the mechanics of modern political protest. Drawing on more than a decade of experience coordinating lawful public events and grassroots advocacy efforts, Swart joins Lee Smith to discuss how demonstrations are organized, funded, and strategically mobilized in today’s rapidly evolving media landscape.

Throughout the conversation, Smith and Swart examine the impact of social media on activism, the incentives driving large-scale protest movements, and the difference between meaningful civic engagement and demonstrations designed primarily for attention. They also explore the importance of transparency in political organizing, the role of funding and professional advocacy networks, and why Swart believes ordinary Americans are too often underrepresented in the public square.

Follow Lee Smith on X https://x.com/LeeSmithDC

New episodes drop every Wednesday at 3 PM ET.

To watch Roots, Rights and Reason, visit The Roots, Rights & Reason Show: https://www.americasfuture.net/the-roots-rights-reason-show

Subscribe to our Rumble channel: https://rumble.com/c/AmericasFuture

Follow Us On Social Media
X: https://x.com/Amerifuture
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/AmericasFutureInc1946
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/americasfutureusa

Subscribe to our Newsletter to stay informed: https://americasfuture.net/subscribe/
Catch up on all past editions here: https://americasfuture.net/newsletter

Transcript

SPEAKER_00 0:02

From the brave roots of our founding, to the unstoppable force of American ingenuity, to the sacred inheritance of freedom we must protect. This is our legacy. Join investigative journalist Lee Smith on Roots, Rights, and Reason. Powered by America's future.

SPEAKER_01 0:21

Hi, I'm Lee Smith. Welcome and thanks for joining us for this new episode of Roots, Rights, and Reason. This week we're discussing one of the defining features of American public life: political demonstrations. It's a sign of a healthy republic when Americans can express their views publicly. But are political demonstrations being shaped by interests that remained largely invisible to the public? From immigration and policing to elections and foreign policy, protests increasingly shape news coverage, influence public opinion, and affect government decision making. Yet, while most Americans see the crowds in the streets, far fewer understand what happens behind the scenes. Who organizes these events, how participants are mobilized, how funding networks operate, and why some demonstrations remain peaceful while others escalate into confrontation. Those issues are particularly relevant today as the country experiences a new wave of activism centered on opposition to federal immigration enforcement. Anti-ICE demonstrations have erupted in cities across the United States, while the nationwide No Kings movement has mobilized thousands of protests and millions of participants. Supporters describe these demonstrations as a defense of civil liberties and a response to what they view as excessive federal authority. Critics argue that some events risk becoming flashpoints for disorder, political polarization, and political violence. The scale and speed of these mobilizations have raised important questions about how modern protest movements are organized and sustained. Many are concerned that the growing professionalization of protest movements and the role of opaque funding sources show evidence that political demonstrations are shaped by interests that remain largely invisible to the public. Our guest today has devised a framework for understanding how confrontations between protesters and authorities can intensify and spread. The protest escalation cycle, he calls it, and he's proposed legislation to require disclosure of funding and organizational support for large-scale demonstrations while preserving First Amendment protections for peaceful protesters. Our guest today is founder and CEO of Crowds on Demand, Adam Swart. He has a unique insider's perspective on how demonstrations are planned, coordinated, funded, and amplified for political and media impact. Adam Swart, welcome to Roots, Rights, and Reason. Thanks very much for being here with us today. And tell us, please, you are an expert in these matters. How have political demonstrations changed? Lee, thanks for having me.

SPEAKER_02 3:12

The uh way that political demonstrations have changed most consequentially is with the rise of first the internet and then social media. So if we look at the heyday of American political demonstrations, was probably in the 1960s, where you had the civil rights movement, the women's rights movement, and the anti-Vietnam War movement, all converge, all extraordinarily successful movements, and all really with protests as a focal point of them. Well, they one of the things about those movements and why they were successful is they had to appeal to sort of the median voter, right? We were in an era where we had three networks, right? So you had to, there was no liberal media or conservative media, so to speak. It was just mainstream media. So you had to create a movement that was very successful with a broad swath of America, right? The internet and first the rise of kind of segmented media, and now with social media, where everything is extremely niche, has really lent itself to making it a little bit harder for protest movements and to appeal to that median voter because simply uh simply getting across that feed of a normal person is harder. So now what you have is movements like MAGA that are tailored to right, you have movements, you know, no kings or whatever, that are tailored toward left, but you don't have a lot of movements that are tailored just toward, hey, convince a normal person who's not political to support that cause.

SPEAKER_01 4:54

Fascinating. So uh does that also mean that because it's more the media is more fragmented and it's more, as you put it, more niche, does that mean that a lot of the move it certainly seems like it, uh, but does it mean that a lot of the protest movements we're seeing are more, uh I guess the way to put it is more extreme?

SPEAKER_02 5:13

Uh well, the incentives support that is the thing, because what you want to do is now the goal of the protest is oftentimes, I actually always I'm old school, even though I'm 35. I I try to really focus on getting I focused my clients on at Crowds on Demand at policy goals is what are we trying to achieve and who are we trying to convince? So, yes, we've done things that have gone viral on social media or media, but generally that is not the goal. That might be a means to an end. With a lot of protests that you see, it feels like that is the end goal is virality, because virality can often translate into actual direct cash compensation from social media networks and all of that. So I think that that the incentives have changed. So, yes, you wanna you now focus on a little bit more of a niche offering, and niche can certainly mean extreme. It doesn't have to be, but it it probably would be because almost by definition, some of the people who show up at a protest who aren't just going about their day-to-day lives with their families and jobs are going to be a more extreme subset of the American population.

SPEAKER_01 6:30

What does your c what does your company do? It's crowds on demand. And so what what what does it do? Yeah.

SPEAKER_02 6:36

So crowds on demand is the largest protest firm. We do lawful, peaceful, respectful advocacy campaigns. So we do everything from organizing protests with sincere supporters and you know, PR stunts, you know, corporate launches, product launches, that type of thing, uh, as well as comprehensive advocacy campaigns, um, using kind of unconventional strategies, oftentimes kind of achieving results where others haven't. And what I, you know, I like to come on the media because there is a lot of misnomer about what we do, and people falsely link what we do to certain craziness that people see on the street, and that has nothing to do with us. We're uh I I've been in business for 15 years almost. So I wouldn't be in business 15 years if we did things the wrong way. We do things the right way. And often and normally, we actually represent what I call the common sense 80-20 position. We represent the 80%. The problem in American political discourse is we have all these public meetings and all these abilities where the 20 or that maybe even 10% on one side who are often very extreme, they show up and they get what they want. Meanwhile, the 80% doesn't show up because they have you know families, kids, responsibilities. So they don't show up. So oftentimes their will is overruled. So if I could give you an example, the Los Angeles City Council was considering a measure to ban uh convicted child sex offenders from camping near schools, right? So I I don't really think that that should be a controversial.

SPEAKER_01 8:17

Sounds like a fair idea.

SPEAKER_02 8:18

Yeah, it sounds like a good idea, and I I I have many friends, liberals and conservatives, and I I don't know a single person who objects to this idea. And yet, when the LA City Council was considering this, 300 people somehow stormed the building and in opposition to this. And and I don't think there was really a lot of people in the building and fa who were there to support it because what I would call this policy something that should be self-evident. We're we're getting to our 250th. So self-evident means something that should that is true just on its own value, that doesn't need explaining, right? So I I think it's self-evident. So why is somebody no, no, no parent is like, oh, I have to go to the LA City Council on Tuesday night to say that child sex offenders shouldn't camp near the school. That should be just assumed that they can't do that, right? But the other side is out there. So crowds on demand often acts as the vehicle for the silent majority.

SPEAKER_01 9:16

Two questions about two questions about this protest you're talking about. First of all, what was the what was the given reason for opposition to this statute? Yeah. Um, what was the given reason, then what was actually behind it?

SPEAKER_02 9:30

Well, yeah, uh, so the in the first case, I think some of them were kind of uh uh at least um ostensibly opposing it on civil rights grounds, and that uh basically their argument um was that these are they like to use the term unhoused people who have nowhere else to go, and the fact that they were convicted and and served whatever sentence that they served shouldn't preclude they it's basically a civil rights violation, is there look at 300 people though? That's astonishing, though. I mean Well, I that's that was my sense too, and and to actually do so in an unlawful way, though, by the way, at least so they weren't even just protesting peacefully, as by the way, it would be their right to do, and I would support their right to demonstrate in favor of that, if that's what their take is, but but they they did so essentially in a I don't think it was a violent way, but they did they did disrupt the meeting and storm the meeting, which is in and of itself unlawful. So uh so I think that I I'm not even saying that they I'm not trying to even say that I don't I don't even know what their motives are. Even if we take them at their word that their motives are civil rights motives, uh you know the I think a vast majority of Americans Angelinos really oppose this. Uh they don't want those people camping near their kids' schools, but I would wager it's more than 80%, it's probably 90 something percent.

SPEAKER_01 11:01

I I right I'd find it very hard to believe that anyone thinks this is okay. Uh once it's brought to their attention, right? Lots of people wouldn't know. But once they're told yes, you have a pro right, there's a problem in your school district.

SPEAKER_02 11:14

And and Lee, this is exactly why crowds on demand is needed, because we are often there in these type of cases to be the rational voice because are the people on the rational side have jobs and have responsibilities, so they just can't, they don't have the time to just every meeting.

SPEAKER_01 11:35

I'm sorry, that's I'm sorry for interrupting. This is such a f fascinating topic, Adam. I'm so glad you're here. Um, right. This is something that people say all the time that lots of the times the I'll be generous, instead of calling them extremists, I'll say that the people who are uh extremely committed to their cause, they show up to demonstrate, and lots of other people, normal people, they have jobs, they have families, they have uh uh travel teams, bowling leagues, whatever, and that they're not showing up. And so actually, what your organization does, you represent those people who can't show up because they have their families, their jobs, whatever, and that's what you do. That's really interesting. That's fascinating.

SPEAKER_02 12:15

Well, it's interesting, and I I hadn't even thought of it in that those terms until fairly recently. But I think a lot of times I've been falsely accused of, oh, we're representing niche opinions. And I'm like, no, I'm actually, I looked back on all the causes. I'm like, no, we're we're representing the common sense position on all these issues. I mean, even there's a one highly publicized piece where there was a power plant in New Orleans that was actually fate that we were able to get, you know, through our action um to get built. And um, I think there were polls that suggested 80% of people were in favor, but there was a small group that was opposed. I mean, if you've been to New Orleans, they're blackouts all the time. So people supported this, and then we got it through, and then everybody was upset. Um, so so the the reality is is that we're often there to actually be on the side of just sort of common sense.

SPEAKER_01 13:06

That's that's fantastic. Congratulations. What an awesome, what an awesome idea. I mean, did you pioneer this idea or had other people been doing this too?

SPEAKER_02 13:16

Well, I assume that this has been going on in some ways for thousands of years.

SPEAKER_01 13:22

Um, in people protest, and you have some of the times the common sense people out there, they're like, no, we don't want, we don't want uh homeless sex offenders sleeping in in the cafeterias at our children's school, right? But people can't be out there all the time protesting against, you know, against well-moneyed people who want to bring destruction to communities. So no, I can't imagine what you do is, you know, that has been done for a long time. It's great.

SPEAKER_02 13:51

Yeah, so it's so it's it's interesting. So that's what we we get hired to basically uh kind of some oftentimes in those types of instances, some kind of business person or group is gonna say, hey, look, we need to turn people out because for for better or for worse, a lot of times turn a lot of politicians. Now I always say, if you're savvy, you know that the people in the room are not reflective of the audience. So, you know, what a couple of interesting things. I'm sure you know who um Corey Bush was uh one of the members of the squad from St. Louis, uh, a gentleman named Jamal Bowman represented, I think, just north of New York City, both far, far, far left representatives. And they both had, I don't know how many million followers on social media. They were both primaried by people with like a thousand followers on social media. So sometimes I think politicians misread this social media kind of Twitter uh social media mob being reflective of the broader population. So, but sometimes what you need is like our company to kind of turn those people out and kind of say, okay, well, now you actually have people on the common sense position.

SPEAKER_01 15:02

So did you work for the the the uh primary challengers to uh to Bush and Bowman?

SPEAKER_02 15:08

Uh no, no, no, we we didn't, but uh I would have been happy to because I'm I'm kind of a I'm I'm an independent I'm a political independent. I got my start in democratic politics in Los Angeles, but I got disillusioned with the Democratic Party. I'm not a Republican either. I I don't believe in in that either, but I'm I'm an independent and but I don't subscribe to either party. We work with sort of common sense causes on both sides. So we've advanced kind of conservative type quote unquote conservative type positions like that the police shouldn't be defunded, perhaps, right? Like we want responsible enforcement. I've also uh advanced quote unquote liberal positions that you know insurance companies can't stop. We've stopped insurance companies from discriminating against the LGBT community. So I'm not a liberal or conservative, I'm common sense. And I, to me, not being allowed to discriminate is a common sense position. It shouldn't be a liberal position. And having safe streets is it shouldn't is a common sense position. It shouldn't be a conservative position, but somehow every issue gets categorized into a liberal or conservative box, but I don't buy into that game.

SPEAKER_01 16:20

So who are the uh are you allowed to talk about some of your clients?

SPEAKER_02 16:26

Yeah, so sure. Well, so some of what we've done, and like I I don't like to talk necessarily about the people who funded it, but I do like to talk about it.

SPEAKER_01 16:35

That's why I was a little uh uh uh gentle about delicate about that, but you probably can't name names, but just the kind of nature of why people, why people will hire your group, crowds on demand.

SPEAKER_02 16:46

Well, part of it is avoiding the cancel culture mob. So during the Biden administration in particular, we've got hired by a lot of kind of well-to-do conservatives who were basically like very prominent people in the business community who basically said, Look, I if we are using if if I engage in conservative politics, they're gonna come for my scalp. You know what I mean? So we provided a vehicle for people to participate in politics, you know, without kind of being, you know, anonymous civic participation, which is a right that the Supreme Court has affirmed. Um we've worked with, you know, advocacy groups, we've worked with um a lot of companies. I mean, uh we worked with kind of former investors in uh big tech to actually put together what's called the delete Facebook campaign, which is another nonpartisan campaign. Everyone hates Facebook, you know, hate Facebook because it's Silicon Valley, and liberals hate Facebook because it's a trillion-dollar enterprise. And our come our effort, hashtag delete Facebook was actually so successful in getting people to kind of hate Facebook from all sides that they changed their name to Meta shortly thereafter.

SPEAKER_01 18:02

Wait, wait, wait, wait, hold on, hold on. You really I mean, is that really is is that I mean, I'm I'm not calling I'm not saying you're making it up, but that that would be pretty fantastic.

SPEAKER_02 18:11

You can't I can't just to be clear, I can't prove the connection, but I'm saying that it's it's interesting, and there could be other factors, so I don't want to like take credit for where it's not proven. But what I would say is like, you know, uh in the aftermath of the you know, Cambridge Analytica scandal, and it showed it was proven that Facebook uh's negligence led to uh an actual genocide against Muslims in Myanmar. There were basically conservatives and liberals were basically like, wow, this company is misusing our data, they're doing really unethical things. And as a result, uh a lot of people, even people who'd made money from big tech, brought us in to sort of say, look, we need to kind of shine a light on all of this. And as a, you know, in a very short order after we did this campaign, they changed their name to Meta and they restricted political ads. Again, this is a very problematic company, but it's a I don't know anyone who was like, yeah, Mark Zuckerberg's a good guy. I've not I I again, as I said earlier, I have conservative friends, I have liberal friends, I don't know a single person.

SPEAKER_01 19:19

But none of them none of them will toast Mark Zuckerberg.

SPEAKER_02 19:23

No, even his own employees, they they he he was trying to hire people for a hundred million dollars and he couldn't get people. You know, it's kind of hilarious how how reprehend how kind of loathsome do you have to be where even the people you're paying seven, eight figures to don't like you.

SPEAKER_01 19:42

Adam, one of the things that you're concerned about, I believe, is that when what dealing with you know with public protest, political protests, but there's a lot of uh there's a lot of money going into these different political operations. And you say we need more transparency, and the fact that political opinions are being shaped and we don't know where the money's coming from is not a good thing. Can you I mean I I can come up with an example and and tell me if I'm wrong and or tell me your examples, but I think a lot of people were very concerned about the protest across the post-October 7th protest that were basically celebrating, uh celebrating terrorist uh organizations. And where did that money come from? Who is doing that? Who is pouring that into American schools and uh and and and American uh American organizations to get these people out on the street and cause some real damage? So that that's certainly one I can think of. Uh and again, you can tell me if I'm wrong on that count, but please tell me like what what what what are the instances that you can think of that have that have alarmed you of late?

SPEAKER_02 20:45

Well, look, and I think that one thing that's very important is to distinguish between, so there are two things. Number one, if you're a foreign actor, you should not be funding uh, you know, a foreign state actor, you should not be funding any kind of uh political action in the United States, whether it is lawful, it the action itself is lawful or unlawful, right? Moreover, though I would say that I also I'm a First Amendment activist, I don't believe that in and of itself offensive speech must be protected if it is truly just speech. But the the most concerning instances that I have seen is when I've seen bricks being passed out on the streets of LA, um, tactical gear being spread out, passed out, because those that is in and of itself associated with violence. And I'm uh well aware tactical gear is quite expensive. So if people are doing that, you don't pass out tactical gear unless you are looking to create a problem. So those type of incidents I I find very concerning. I I've definitely I don't want to name any particular name as being behind it, and the reason is because I don't want to get sued for uh defamation if this isn't true, but they're Have been a lot of names that I've seen reported as you know bill you know very well-to-do individuals who might be funding it. Well the problem lee is that you have a system of what's called Russian dolls, where you've got maybe the billionaire benefactor is in the middle, and you have several layers between that person uh or the state actor and the person on the street who's throwing the Molotov cocktail. And what you have to do is you need to get kind of closer to the center, and you need to be able to do that simultaneously while protecting the right of those who have who are just merely speaking opinions that you disagree with. So it's a really subtle dance in this country because we rightfully have the beautiful First Amendment.

SPEAKER_01 22:48

But I was gonna say we're we're running out of time here, but I wanted you to talk about to this end. I wanted to say that I believe that you have a piece of legislation that we're trying to convince people in. So can you talk about that?

SPEAKER_02 23:02

Transparency and Political Demonstrations Act. So what we want to do is any large rally, so I define that as over 500 people, should be um, there should be disclosures of who is funding it and who is getting paid from it. Whether that's uh on the left, a labor union, on the right, you know, a mega church, you know, I I don't care. I just want to see who is being who is paying for it and who is getting paid from top to bottom. I want the full kind of um, you know, nose to tail, as they say when they're you're you're uh cooking uh you know meat. Um I wanna I wanna understand who is funding it and I want to understand who is um getting paid by it. And we we people are like, Adam, why are you supporting this? You would wouldn't this hurt you? And I'm like, no, I actually think I want full transparency and on everything, and I think that if we have that, I think it'll actually give people more confidence in the system because the reality, Lee, is every demonstration is funded by somebody because in order to do a large demonstration, you need a ton of money. I mean, to do it lawfully, you need bathrooms, you need medical, you need security, you need stages, AV. It's all expensive stuff. You need wealthy people behind it, and there are wealthy people on the right and on the left. But what I want is just the transparency of understanding this stuff.

SPEAKER_01 24:23

Is this a state legislators or or you're going to Congress with this?

SPEAKER_02 24:27

Who are you talking about? I think this has to be federal. I think this has to be done at the federal level, um, because there are First Amendment implications, and I think that only the federal law can really do this effectively.

SPEAKER_01 24:40

Adam, that sounds like a great idea. Um look, it was so much fun talking to you. I I I I learned a whole bunch I didn't know, and I I really like I I like your I like the work that you do, the idea of representing common sense people. You get out there because common sense people are busy with lots of other stuff, but they have political opinions, they have interests, and they need people like you standing standing up there for them. Adam Swart, thank you so much for being here with us today on Roots, Rights, and Reason. And thanks to all of you for watching Roots, Rights, and Reason. I'm Lee Smith, and we'll see you with our next episode.