Adam Swart, CEO of Crowds on Demand, has revealed the ‘dirty secrets’ of the US political protest industry, arguing that most activism is driven by incentives rather than pure ideological conviction.
In an interview with Fox News, Swart described the practice of compensating demonstrators for public events as ethical, emphasizing that it allows individuals to engage with causes they support, even if they might not otherwise have the means or time to do so. He claimed that while the act of protest is often portrayed as a noble endeavor, the reality is more complex, with participants frequently motivated by personal gain, social media visibility, or external pressures rather than intrinsic belief in the cause.
Swart provided examples of such motivations, citing the 2020 Black Lives Matter protests, where he suggested that many attendees were not driven by a deep-seated concern for institutional racism but rather by the desire to gain social media attention or flex their involvement. He also pointed out that labor unions often pressure members to attend demonstrations, with threats of less favorable work shifts if they fail to comply, while political aides are frequently expected to participate in campaign events during their personal time.
According to Swart, paid demonstrators typically earn several hundred dollars per day, with nationwide campaigns costing millions. He mentioned that he recently declined a $20 million offer from political interests opposed to former President Donald Trump, not due to ideological reasons but because he feared the campaign’s likely failure could damage his firm’s reputation. Swart criticized the political consultants who supported former President Joe Biden and former Vice President Kamala Harris, stating that their efforts failed to rein in Trump’s agenda despite their significant financial backing.
The revelation has sparked debate about the role of compensation in political activism, raising questions about whether the motivations behind protest actions are genuinely driven by ideology or by external incentives. While critics argue that such practices undermine the purity of activism, Swart and others in the industry maintain that these arrangements provide opportunities for individuals to engage with causes they care about, even if the primary motivations are not purely altruistic.