Latest / 775 Alive / Eo036: Paid Crowds and Protests (Guest: Adam Swart, CEO of Crowds on Demand)

Transcript

Eo036: Paid Crowds and Protests (Guest: Adam Swart, CEO of Crowds on Demand) · 775 Alive

• 0:03
  Welcome to the 775 Alive podcast, your rural Nevada headquarters for decoding politics, economics, and general global shenanigans. I'm Crystal Newton, your business strategist, breaking down why Nevada's hustle is stronger than a sagebrush root in a windstorm. Here with my trusty co-host, Scott Gavorsky, PhD historian, here to explain the smart lessons of history, even if we are likely to ignore them. Grab your boots for a wild ride through today's most important news. Welcome back to 775 Alive. [music ends] Scott - I'm flying solo today. Crystal had something come up and she couldn't join us, but I'm so happy to be joined here with Adam Swart from Crowds on Demand. Welcome, Adam.
• 0:43
  Adam - Hey, Scott. Thanks so much for having me on. It's great to be with the amazing people of all of Nevada. And we were just talking about it. Nevada is more than Vegas and Reno. So, hello to the people of Elko and beyond.
• 0:55
  Scott - Well, thank you. We asked Adam here to join us because Crowds on Demand, which he'll tell you about here in a minute, is a company that was set up basically to provide crowds for various events. And of course, one of the things we have going on right now nationwide, and Crystal and I have talked about this in a couple different episodes both on, on protesting culture and when we did the interview with Ty Trouten, the retired police chief here in Elko, is this question about how legitimate this sort of paid protesting is. So, Adam, go ahead and start this out. Give us a bit of your background and tell us what Crowds on Demand actually does.
• 1:34
  Adam - Yeah, sure. So, first off, Founder and CEO of Crowds on Demand, we are the largest protest company in the country. We've been around for 13 years since 2012. Now, how did we, how are we around for 13 years? Well, the answer is that we don't do illegal forms of protest. So, one of the number one things I have to correct the record on, and that's part of why I'm on this podcast and others, is to correct the record. There's so much misinformation that suggests that we have anything to do with riots, vandalism, looting, violence, blocking streets without permit. That's not what we do. We are in the business of persuasive advocacy. We compensate demonstrators, yes. But we compensate passionate, enthusiastic activists to come out, speak on issues that they're passionate about and that work with what the client needs. And we do that around the country. And my focus on, is on respectful persuasive advocacy. Not just because blocking roads and vandalism and all that is illegal, but it because ultimately those tactics aren't even effective. Those tactics are generally self-defeating. So my take is my style works and that is why I'm here to talk a little bit about that and a lot of other stuff. Scott - Yeah. Yeah. And there's a lot of stuff there because you you hit a lot of big stuff. And of course, most of the viewers know that that I do a lot of public outreach consulting particularly for rural and tribal audiences. You know, in some of these cases, these quote unquote crowd hiring sources are well known within the industry. I've never had an opportunity to use them because I'm not doing that type of stuff. But if you have, say for instance, a kickoff event, a movie premiere, a candidacy campaign kickoff, that's where these really got started in sort of the bread and butter. Am I correct? Just sort of filling seats so you look like you have a full crowd.
• 3:29
  Adam - Well, that's true. And the way that I look at it is what you really are trying to do is give the right context to the event. As I always say, imagine the greatest speeches of all time, Martin Luther King's "I Have a Dream" speech delivered to five people. It wouldn't have had the same resonance, right? Even though his words were the exact same, but if there were five people instead of a million people watching, it wouldn't have had that same resonance. So, part of it is you want to put what you're doing in the right context. And some people say that's misleading. And here's why I don't think it's misleading. Everybody wants to put their right spin on what they're doing. It's why women put on makeup, right? They want to look their best versions of themselves. They're not trying to look like a different person. They want to look like their best person. It's why men shave or they groom, right? It's we want to look like the best versions of ourselves, right? Is that misleading? I mean, I guess certain people might think that, but overall, I think presenting well is a good thing. I had this interesting discussion with some gentlemen who also own a hard seltzer line. And I asked them, they said, "Oh, well, this is misleading." And I said, "Well, why don't you put a fat guy who lives in his mom's basement on the cover of your seltzer instead of a girl in a bikini?" And they said, "Well, it wouldn't sell very well." I said, "Well, yeah, because you want the right context on your product." Well, I I think that people should want that on their campaigns as well. So, when you're doing a campaign launch, you want certain type of people. And by the way, even if you don't directly compensate them, I want to let your viewers know that every campaign does this. Every campaign does this. Republican, Democrat, or no party. I've worked on enough campaigns to know tthe people standing behind the candidate is a like, it's a staged bunch of people. Oh, you want to have certain diversity there or maybe you don't want diversity but it's thought through. Maybe you want a labor union activist or maybe you want a tribal activist or whatever the case may be. You choose who is standing behind you and who is standing around you for a specific reason. So that's not misleading. That's just basic common sense.
• 5:33
  Scott - And basic marketing.
• 5:40
  But that does get into the point that there's two dimensions. First of all, we've seen what probably over the last 10, 15 years, the rise of the term astroturf, that these aren't grassroots movements that are starting from the bottom up with that implication. They're organic. They're natural. They're being manufactured like you'd manufacture astroturf, you know for a playing field. What's your impression of that term? Is it legitimate or not?
• 6:03
  Adam - I think it's kind of a juvenile term. Like it feels like something a seven-year-old would say, like he's cheating. He's cheating. It's like when in the reality of the fact is that astroturf is just a term that you people come up with to, to tar people that they don't like, right? Because the reality is both liberals, conservatives, Republicans, Democrats, whatever, have a ton of money behind them. So this concept of well our movement is 100% genuine and no ulterior motives and their movement oh that they're just there cuz they're being paid. It it's kind of an absurd concept when every movement from MAGA to Tea Party to civil rights to gay rights has a ton of money behind it. So like let's not pretend that all the movements that you like and all the movements that you don't like have money behind them.
• 6:59
  Scott - Mhm. And about here is perception. You're creating a perception that there's a ground swell, that there's a mob behind you. And sort of going off this, of course, we talked a bit here before the podcast and why I brought up the fact that I'm trained as a historian.
• 7:23
  You know, we've had this thing going around on the political left that oh, once you have 3.5% of the population out protesting, no government has ever survived that in history. And part of my problem is one how do you estimate the size of crowds which is very difficult to begin with.
• 7:35
  Adam - Also juvenile. This is, it's just more juvenile antics from it. And now I have to be like candid with you, that like President Trump also makes a big deal of crowd size. So, like this isn't solely a thing on the left. In fact, Trump is the first person I remember making specifically making like, oh, there's a 100,000 in the crowd versus 50,000. Like, generally, you'd have a president or a leader saying, oh, well, there's a lot of people in the crowd. Trump is basically like, no, no, it's not 50,000, it's 100,000, and you better say it's 100,000. So, I think in fairness, um, in fairness, you definitely have both people on the right and the left making a big deal of crowd size. And I've always been a believer that actually this is way overblown, even though it maybe profits me to say that it isn't. Like, to me, I'm like, it doesn't really matter. I mean, like, you're a historian, so let's talk about the Silent Majority of the late60s, right? So, Richard Nixon and Spiro Agnew, right? Correctly. They were talking about one of the things that they did was actually they called the left's bluff. So they said, "Okay, there are all these people", maybe it was 3%. I don't know specifically how many were in the streets, but basically Nixon and Agnew were saying, okay, those people are out there, but they don't reflect the broader sentiment. The broader sentiment doesn't necessarily support what they're saying. So I'm going to appeal to the people who aren't in the streets. And they won, right? They won in ' 68 and they won in '72 based on the people who weren't in the streets, right? So, um, and here's a more modern example of I'm sure you guys know, your listeners know of the Squad, you know, the Squad, the far left in Congress, right? So, two of their members got primaried, right? So, these were far-left members who got primaried by moderate Democrats, right? Jamal Bowman and Corey Bush. So Jamal Bowman was New York up like just up from New York City and Cory Bush was St. Louis and they both had however many millions of social media followers and the people that they lost to had a couple thousand social media followers. So it really goes to show like yes crowd size matters. Yes, social media matters. Of course it does. But what also matters is really knowing your area and knowing the people and being responsive. And if you live in a district where people are really politically active, actually that sometimes matters more than than the crowd size. So yeah, 3.5% is a lot of people to draw into the street. Don't get me wrong, paid or unpaid. because paid if it's expensive, you know, but but the reality is is that what matters more is are those why does it matter if the 3% . . . is the idea is if 3% are in the streets then 70% are in support of them. But I I don't necessarily believe that that's always the case, right? Just cuz 3% in the streets means 3% in the streets. We've worked on so many city council, board of supervisors, whatever kind of meetings where, you know, not 80% of the people support our position, right? But of the 20%, those are the people who always show up. So, we actually get hired to represent the silent majority, if you see what I'm saying, right?
• 10:55
  Scott - And that that brings up an interesting point. I mean, there's a . . . there's a lot here to unpack. First of all, I think it's very interesting that you set up Crowds on Demand well before even Trump announces his presidency in 2015, right? So, this is already something that exists and you know, again, I've come across it and familiar with the concept from my work in the field, you know, so this isn't something that's just new. This isn't something that's been created since 2016.
• 11:28
  but I think the other side of this is on one side you have the crowd size and the compensation or composition of that crowd as you pointed out. But there's also the perception that that carries and I think that's part of where that astroturf comes from is that this isn't this somehow isn't real. And we're seeing, we're seeing a lot of this now, you know, a couple weeks ago, when the Venezuelan situation sort of popped up and all of a sudden within hours there's the same posters across the country just sort of ready to go. What was your take on that? Adam - Well, look, I think when it comes to for . . . like I just want to make one point is I don't condone foreign governments and I think in case many cases it's illegal to the extent that a foreign government was involved in those protests which I cannot prove but to the extent that it was that's a problem right because that's I believe it's illegal for foreign countries to involve our themselves in our domestic affairs, right? So to the extent that is that was of course it's we involve ourselves in other countries domestic affairs all the time. But you know, we're America. We do what we want. I was just I'm saying that with such a serious face like how dare they involve themselves in our domestic affairs and we do it all the time, but whatever. We're America. We have, we got the aircraft carriers, right? So anyway, so okay, whatever. So I don't have I have a problem with that. So but there's also even to the extent that maybe it wasn't a foreign country, yeah, of course there's organization behind it. I mean, but my question is, is it isn't it like do you think that the people who are demonstrating don't care or is your point that there's a lot of money behind the movement, right? Because those are two sort of separate questions like there . . .can both can be true at the same time? MAGA has a ton of money behind it, but a lot of people really support MAGA. So is it could it not also be true that Palestine or Venezuela or whatever the causes are agree or disagree may have a lot of legitimate support where while also having money behind them right like I think those things aren't necessarily mutually exclusive.
• 13:39
  Scott - Yeah, and I . . . and that's something one of the things that strikes me is of course Marketing 101 for anything, and this is a form of marketing, a you know consistency of message. Get your message. Hit it. Hammer it. Hammer it. Hammer it. And that's part of what I think we're seeing with these signs and whatnot is the messaging. But one of the things that I found that was very interesting back last spring when the No Kings protest broke out across the country. And Crystal and I talked about that extensively cuz Crystal actually got caught in the crowd that was protesting in Carson City. And of course we've had a couple since then. But one of the things that got me about those at least the initial and I would say still the last series of No Kings protest is there really was no unity in the messaging. I mean you go up there and there's 30, 40, 50 different signs that are going in sort of different directions about what Trump's doing.
• 14:34
  Adam - So Scott, I guess here's my question. It does feel like you're damned if you do and you're damned if you don't because you're criticizing the Venezuela thing because you saying you're saying, "Oh, well they have all the same signs, right?" And now it seems like you're leveling a different the opposite criticism at the No Kings and saying, "Oh, they have different signs, right?" So, so is there a common thread to that criticism or is this a more of a curiosity?
• 14:57
  Scott - Well, it no, it's it because I tend to I tend to see the No Kings protest as having been a little bit more organic, right? Particularly when it started simply because there is no messaging outside the fact we don't like Trump and here's the specific reason.
• 15:13
  Adam - Of course. Yeah.
• 15:18
  you haven't seen the entire episode. Crystal and I this was one of our biggest arguments that relates directly to this and why we were excited to get you on the show is I actually don't think there's anything wrong or or necessarily illegal or immoral with aid protest. I have no problem with that, right? It it happens and when Crystal and I were talking about it because Crystal at times pointed, you know, isn't there something we should be doing because is this really an exercise of free speech? Well, you know it is. It doesn't matter if you get paid.
• 15:42
  Adam - It's no different than buying an advertisement. Scott - Right. And I think, I think that's the true, but you know, I pointed out labor unions have done this for years. You know, even if they're out on strike, they're paying the people to protest. And you're absolutely, I agree with you totally. There's , you know, it's not mutually exclusive. Somebody can be holding a pre-printed sign and still believe in the message on that sign.
• 16:02
  Adam - Exactly.
• 16:10
  Adam - It's advertising and people can . . . like there can be money and there can be legitimate support. Now the one of the challenges. So it's a really interesting thing because like to talk just get into a little bit of strategy for a movement, is there is this balance of like, hey you have what you're describing with that is . . . Okay there could be a coalition where you have maybe some people who are mad at Trump about Palestine and maybe some people are mad at him about healthcare and whatever. So the, the challenge is that if your message is too all over the place, then it is it really runs the risk of being lost and if it's too focused then it's harder to get a broader support base behind it. Right? So like one great example of the former is Occupy Wall Street. I mean there were . . . I mean if you think about it that Occupy Wall Street was one of the greatest failures in American political history, right. And let me describe why it was one of the greatest failures. So this was 2009, right? We've had the financial crash, right? People had lost everything. Unemployment like highest since the 20s, right? Or since the, you know, the Great Depression, right? Like America was in a terrible, terrible place. And people were mad and people were saying like, you know, what is going on with Wall Street, right? They they had um it seemed like these executives were getting away with everything. You had Obama, right, who was elected, who was kind of elected on a principle of reform. But the mo . . . so if you think about it, this movement, they had 66 Democratic senators, I think it was, they had presidency, they had, you know, almost super majority with Pelosi in the House, right? The fact that they did not get any accountability for Wall Street, right? They were not able to get any reforms in for Wall Street. All those Wall Street people walked, no one really got went to jail of the high-level people who were responsible for things, right? So the fact that that it was such, such a patent failure despite so many hundreds of thousands of people coming out was actually a sign that they didn't have specific messaging. Like if they had said, "Mr. President, we are demanding XYZ. We are demanding number one that the Department of Justice create this task force. Number two, that you subpoena these executives and you like you claw back their pay or you don't bail out these companies. Number three," right, you whatever the agenda was and said, "Look, we are demanding this." But what you do, one of the big things if in advocacy is you want to you don't give the elected officials opportunity to give you lip service, right? Because what any elected official, Republican or Democrat, is always looking to do is like, "Yes, I agree with you. You are right," you know, and I'm with you while actually not doing anything for you, right? Because they don't want to do anything for you because generally what they want is to support the side of the big interests, right? Because that's who's paying the bills. So if they can give you lip service without consequential action, which is what exactly what the Democratic politicians did during the Occupy movement. They yelled at the Wall Street CEOs. They yelled at the car company CEOs, but they didn't do anything, right? And that's because Occupy Wall Street had no cohesive management that basically said, "We're demanding this and we're not going to let you off the hook until you do it." You see what I'm saying? So whereas there is this beauty and like, "Oh, there's 50 different signs and there's all kind there's the libertarian guy, there's the the abortion guy, there's the Palestine guy." Well, okay. What are you going to accomplish from that? Right? Like everybody knows there are a lot of people who don't like Trump. I mean whatever, however many million people voted against Donald Trump, right? So we all know that there are people who don't like Trump. The question is what can if you're on the other side of Trump, what are you consequentially going to do to reign in his agenda?
• 20:15
  Scott - Well, and this . . . and I you brought up Occupy Wall Street. I got plenty of stories about about Occupy Wall Street, but because I think and with the No Kings, so you have two protests that really didn't have the high focus and I would argue failed. I'm not really sure the No King's protest actually accomplished anything other than some highlight footage for the media and keep people on . .
• 20:37
  Adam - I''ll give you something on No Kings, it's a psychological thing for the people on the left, right? And and I'm not saying that like as an insult, just to be clear, but like a lot of people on the left feel very dispirited right now. And there is some value to the extent that you're doing it peacefully, which I think it was, right, of coming together with other people who believe the same things you believe. Now, it doesn't matter so much in a place like San Francisco or New York where or Boston, right, where people are liberal. But if you're in a place like Carson City or you're in a place like Elko or wherever, right, where that are more Trump country, there is a, I think, psychological value of coming together with people who feel that way if you that the same way as you. But yes, correct. On a policy matter, it was a complete failure. They achieved nothing. Scott - Mhm. Do you . . . could the Tea Party in with that? Adam - Oh, 100 . . . Well, the Tea Party No, because. So, here's the thing. The Tea Party was very effective. But you remember that guess who funded the tea party? The Koch brothers, right? So the Koch brothers, the Tea Party was the Tea Party before the Koch brothers created it when it of basically remember it was like 20 guys with tricolor hats dressed like you know Washington and Thomas Jefferson, right? And you know Fox News and the conservative media really amplified it and then it grew, right? But the Koch brothers and and other conservative billionaires bankrolled the Tea Party from the the get-go, is my understanding. And if the Koch brothers want to dispute that, feel free. But it was . . . I had this argument with Lawrence Jones of Fox News about this and, and um he was like, "No, the Tea Party wasn't funded." It's like, dude, like it was like it's on the records, right? Um it was a very, very well-funded movement. Um again, that's not to take away from the fact that people were believed in the movement. So again what my point is which I keep saying is something can be well-funded and have people who believe in it. In fact the what the funding does is it catalyzes a movement. So there are a lot of amazing movements that die in darkness because no one ever see hears about them. So if you're saying, "Hey, I'm going to fund this." Like what what is the Tea Party? It was anti- tax, anti- big government, and basically says, "We're going to fund this because we feel like the Obama administration is overreaching, right?" And a lot of people agree with that, but you first have to market that message so that people listen to it, right? And they did, and it resonated, right? Conversely, money does not buy success. I mean, there is a gentleman, um, I'm not sure you remember him. He ran for president in 2016. His name is Jeb Bush. Scott - Oh, yeah.
• 23:24
  Jeb.
• 23:24
  Adam - Yeah. I mean, he's kind of like so obscure at this point. I'm like, I even wonder if anyone's heard of him. But yeah, he had like a couple hundred million dollars of funding and it was just a total disaster. And everybody knew who he was at the time, but, or like Michael Bloomberg, right, on the other side. Like money does not buy support. What money does is it makes sure that people can pay attention to your message and hear your message. And then from that point, you have the movement has to fly. So it's like, okay, you can you can get the bird off the ground, but the bird still has to have wings, right?
• 24:01
  Scott - And and of course the Harris campaign in 2024 is the great example.
• 24:07
  Adam - Another great example of that. wrote on the ballot instead of Kamala Harris, right, John Smith, Democrat, right? She would . . . that John Smith Democrat, I've never heard of John Smith, but John Smith would have gotten more votes than Kamala Harris, right? A person you've never heard of who didn't spend a dollar. They literally would have gotten more votes just because their name was de Democrat and it was not Donald Trump, right? like everyone who voted for Kamala Harris would have voted for any other person other than Donald Trump is my understanding.
• 24:39
  Scott - Well, and, and that's just . . .
• 24:44
  was that was truly an embarrassing campaign. That was truly an embarrassing campaign. I mean Biden never should have . . . he should have either stepped down before the before this whole thing like you know after the midterms or or just not at all. I mean, but it was just a total disaster. Um, Kamla was I mean. That was a joke, but I'm from California, so I know Kamala. I mean remember when she was at my dorm room at UCLA used she used to come campaign at UCLA and like there were like three people listening to her and I remember she was really mad. I mean I was working in Democratic party politics at the time. I'm an independent now but at the time I remember she would always be mad. This was part of the inspiration for starting this business is when I was a volunteer and she'd get so mad and all these people would like because you'd go and like no one would come to hear. I mean, she was always a master at the behind the scenes, but she was never very good at at having support. I mean, she never really had a ton of support when she ran her own presidential campaign into the 2019, 20 primary season. And interestingly enough, you know, the group that she did worse with is the black voters. I think she did worse with with the black voters who she's kind of marketed herself as as that. But she actually did not do very well with that that group. I think she did the best with the, with the well-to-do white women.
• 26:07
  Scott - Well, let's, let's talk about that because we've been talking about a series of failures, some successes, but failures in messaging for whatever reason, whether it be crowd size, whether it be messaging.
• 26:18
  Adam - Yeah.
• 26:24
  this topic of paid for crowds up to the point is that the failure of some of these movements like No Kings and other protests now seems to be pushing these crowds in the direction of violence, right? That peaceful protest isn't working. But we're starting to get uncomfortably close . . . And, you know, I mean as a historian, Americans have very little experience with political violence over the last two or three generations. We just don't have it. So a lot of this seems shocking.
• 26:54
  But I think that's an interesting messaging component in its own right that now what we're seeing . . . Minnesota comes to mind some of these other protests where we really are seeing violence being engaged in. There's no way shape or form you can call some of these peaceful, right? Adam - Not at all. Not at all. So a couple thoughts. Number one is even within the context um of the American experience, the these past 20 years have actually been the lowest in political violence, right? And fortunately, so like if you look at the 60s, 70s, 80s, there was actually a lot more. I mean Dr. King, John F. Kennedy, Robert F. Kennedy, John Lennon, um you know, Harvey Milk, uh George Moscone, I mean many, many others like lesser known people. So I mean you had, you had an era of immense political violence during that, during that time. And of course I fear that with what you've seen in Minnesota now, of course, what hap the horrible uh you know uh attack on Charlie Kirk, right? Like I fear that that is happening now that we are leading to that now. But I don't think it has to be that way and it shouldn't be that way. And and I'll tell you why. We are so fortunate to live in a country that affords us the right of peaceful expression, right? Like and I can tell you as this like the law gives us huge leeway in lawful protests. Like I have we have done as part of the Delete Facebook protest that was very successful that even caused Facebook to change its name. Like they changed their name to Meta because we protested them. Like we were able to protest Mark Zuckerberg's estate. Like in what country can you protest an estate of one of the most powerful, richest people in the country? We can do that legally, right? We can like we have so much right many rights legally in this country to protest. There is no excuse for violence and lawbreaking in a country that actually affords us those immense privileges. That's my opinion. Like I'm having done this for 13 years, I know like a lot of people don't even understand like the amount of protests that you are allowed to do. You can be on any sidewalk besides any like, you could literally the law gives us the ability to protest almost any public place at almost any time, almost any time anywhere in the country on any subject however offensive. So I'm like I don't . . .
• 29:31
  it really upsets me when people take up any kind of lawbreaking and violence because we are we're so lucky in this country to have the ability to have a such a wide breath of what we're allowed to do in terms of public expression. I support that. You know so that so that if people are doing these things like impeding federal officers, blocking roads, all that that is completely inexcusable.
• 29:57
  Scott - Mhm. And that gets into I think part of the dynamic. And I'm one of the people who is sort of picky that there's there's not a specific right to protest in the Constitution. There's peacefully assemble, address . . .
• 30:13
  Adam - That's protest.
• 30:13
  Scott - Right. Right.
• 30:19
  that same right can be instituted . . .
• 30:19
  Adam - But that's affirmed by the Supreme Court many many times. Assembly equals protest. I mean assembly, I mean of course, to me, assembly it's obviously an indicates that you have the right to protest. Now of course there are certain jurisdictions that . . .
• 30:36
  now jurisdictions have the right to limit how you protest. For example, most jurisdictions have limits on what's called amplified sound. That's like you can't blare a megaphone at 2 a.m. Right? Because that that that is generally considered like beyond assembly, right? That's more of a nuisance. Now, if you want to use a megaphone, you can get a permit and have your time to do that. If you want to you block a street, you can get a permit and have your time to do that. But overall, assembly generally means people on a public area, you know, gathered chanting with their own voices.
• 31:12
  Scott - Right. Well, and that's and that's that's part of why I bring this up because I find it interesting. I . . . you know part of it is what's the meaning of protesting right if it's just saying no, I would agree with you 100%. But I'm thinking of an argument that I think is developing very strongly that once you hit some sort of moral event horizon, right, that justifies actions that wouldn't be acceptable, for instance, if you're just, you know, celebrating a sports team winning, right, or something else. And I think we're starting to see that argument become more and more embedded, right?
• 31:57
  Adam - Argument meaning . . . you're, you're referring to the argument among some far-left protesters that violence is acceptable.
• 32:09
  Scott - Right. Right. That and . . .
• 32:14
  I can't condemn that more like enough whether it's, and I don't care it's from the right or the left, because what I don't want any kind of like the vigilantism or anything like that. So So I, I can't . . . I condemn that in the strongest possible terms. I think that like if you want to work through the psychology of why people think that like there's a few reasons. Number one is I think there are some people who are just psychologically like delusional, right? Who have like social media is a cancer in this country. And social media, I'm sure you've know and I know people who have just lost their minds both on the right and on the left who've just gone down a rabbit hole and never come back. And I started noticing that rabbit hole in 2015-16 and it's just gotten deeper and deeper and deeper, right? And it's gone down to a hole in the center of the earth, you know, next to Satan himself in my opinion. Uh like the these the social media companies are satanic in my opinion, truly. Because they are basically using all of your darkest deepest darkest um emotions because that's what keeps you on the platform. And the longer you're on the platform, the more money they make on you because the more they can sell you shit, right? So, pardon my French, but the uh so what they are doing is patently evil in my opinion. And social media has radicalized people on the right and it has radicalized people on the left. And there are some people who've been so radicalized on the left that are that, that they believe that some of these actions are acceptable. Um, number one. Number two, I think that there is actually a misinterpretation of what the law allows you and does not allow you to do. So, I saw a, I saw this video on Twitter yesterday of this woman who I guess was blocking the ICE vehicles and the ICE is like, "Okay, we're going to refer you to the prosecution." And she was like, "Please, please don't. I'm a mom. I'm a mom. I didn't know. Like, I'm a mom." And you know, I guess they let her go. But I think what a lot of people don't understand is that that is not protest. You can stand on the public street with a sign. You can say eff ICE. You can you, you have a lot of leeway in what you can demonstrate, but you cannot like basically block in a police vehicle to try to impede them from doing their job, right? That is not an acceptable form of protest. But I think a lot of people don't understand the legal of that. So, I think I would just urge people to make sure that you understand that that is not a permissible form of of protest, right? Um that that you can stand with a sign. You can even yell at ICE officers if you want, like, though I don't condone that. But I think that you can certainly hold your signs and everything. But so I think part of it is that so but I think that the psychology does have the roots in the social media and I really could not condemn these social media companies more. Scott - Well, and let's go back because this might be a good place to to go back to this topic you raised earlier of the catalyzation provided by funding into these and of course you've been doing a tour on a number of the talk shows. About where some of this funding for these these violent protests are coming from. What have you been seeing in that?
• 35:38
  Adam - Well, it's very concerning. Um money behind it? As I've worked through before, tactical gear, very expensive, right? Very expensive. So, there's videos of tactical gear being distributed on the streets of Los Angeles, right? And it looks like they have like hundreds of units, right? So, someone's out there with spending all that all that money on tactical gear, right? Now, of course, I don't believe it's illegal to wear tactical gear, but generally the reason you wear tactical gear is because you're prepared for a fight, right? So, it's not inherently illegal, but it seems to be associated with you're trying to escalate a situation, right? My focus actually is de-escalation. I always try to de-escalate because I always try to say, and that's part of why people use us, is that we're persuasive advocates. Yes, people aren't always happy to see protesters, of course, but my goal is to always de-escalate a situation. So, okay, number two, you had bricks being distributed, right? You also had I mean this is a little bit further back, but you had like all these tents that all were the same color that all looked like the same brand that were being distributed for an illegal encampment on certain college campuses, right? It's illegal to just camp on a college campus without a permission for that. So that I consider that an illegal activity, right? Um so yeah, I mean even though it's not necessarily violent, but I do consider it somewhat violent if you're basically having these checkpoints as these students did and saying only certain ethnicities of people are allowed to go past the checkpoints. I mean that, that's that's ridiculous. Of course, presumably with the or else being that if someone does try to check it push through the checkpoint that there would be violence. to me that feels like threatening. So I guess the way that I would look at it is that yeah, there's money behind it and that needs to be investigated, which is why, by the way, to get to something I wanted to talk about, which is that I have put through put forward and I've written to Congress and supported what's called a Transparency in Political Demonstrations Act, which requires any demonstration with over 500 participants involved. Right? So that's a large demonstration to disclose the funding and the vendors, right? So, and we want to go to the source of the funding and the source of the vendors, right? So whether it's a labor union, whether it's government, whether it's whoever is involved in this, we want to know, right? And who's funding it and who is receiving compensation. And by the way, compensation refers to in-kind compensation. So, a labor union member who's getting a preferential shift or someone who's a political staffer who's going that it needs to be disclosed to. And what that will do is give people the transparency. Now, a lot of people are asking, Adam, why are you supporting this? Right? You would think that I would be opposing it. Well, the reason why I support it is there's so much misinformation about our involvement and that I have nothing to hide. But what I want is for everyone to be subject to the same disclosure standards and we are enthusiastic to get this passed and we will just we will comply just like everyone else will. Scott - Mhm. And let me, let me just play devil's advocate on that because how you describe that brought up a sort of a parallel situation we've had recently with the effort to force public disclosure of funders of ballot initiatives. Yeah. In many states, right? California the Proposition 8 a number of years ago. This was really the big issue. And a lot of people found that unsavory because what they said is that will chill free exercise of this stuff. Do you think the Transparency in Protesting Act is that something that might chill the willingness of groups to potentially fund a protest? Adam - Well, I want to be clear that this is only for large-scale protests. So, if you have 50 people or 100 people, I'm . . . my goal is not to make it overly burdensome for people to comply, but it's more to say what I am looking to do is to say, look, if you have these really large demonstrations, people should understand what all is behind it. And part of it is actually actually it's going to help because people will understand okay this is what is behind it. Um so it'll actually take away some of the conspiracy element to it. Yeah, I mean this is a balance. It is a legitimate point and I do generally support anonymous free speech. We have facilitated anonymous free speech. A lot of your Republican listeners may not realize that we've worked with a lot of Republican customers, especially in the Biden administration who were petrified about cancel culture. So they, they're CEOs, board members, all these type of people, right, who are like, hey, if I ever if it ever comes out I'm funding a Republican cause, this is going to be really bad for me. So we we are the vehicle for that, right? So, I understand the concern and it's a legitimate concern and it has to be balanced, but I think there's just so much misinformation and disinformation about these protests that I do think that having some degree of transparency and I'm open to negotiating the degree of transparency to facilitate anonymous US donors who want to be part of it, you know, but the biggest thing is I want to wean out any foreign interference and I want to understand that who is being paid around these events, Scott - Right. And that's something that came out. I mean, there's just been a recent discussion. I think there's only like eight states, for instance, that have laws specifically banning foreign actors from contributing funds to ballot initiatives. So, in 42 states in the Union, a foreign power can come in and fund a ballot initiative, right? They can't give the candidates, but they can fund a ballot initiative. And you know do you think from some of your research that this this foreign investment is really a major deal that we've seen maybe ramp up here over the last 10, 15 years?
• 41:47
  Adam - Uh yeah, I believe that. I believe that it is a long-running issue where foreign countries . . . I mean the United States is the most powerful country in the world, right? So therefore many foreign countries naturally want to exert influence in the United States, right? We know that. So um and as America becomes more powerful, which we have, um it makes sense that countries do want to do that, but there is a legal process to do that and it involves registering with foreign agents and stuff. So there are legal ways for foreign countries to advocate within the United States and hire and within the context of even organizing demonstrations, but there has to be disclosures of that, right? But this is kind of an extension of that to say, look, we really want to understand what is going on with all of this the protest stuff and and that is that is to be expected.
• 42:53
  topic and I you know, my thinking and again this is the historian is we're probably, we're probably at the beginning of an uptick in violence for a period, right? Uh, I don't think it's going to get as bad as the 60s or 70s, but I think it is going to catch a lot of Americans off-guard.
• 43:10
  Adam - Well, you know why I think that I hope you're wrong, and let me tell you why I think you could be wrong.
• 43:14
  Scott - Well, I hope I'm wrong, too, but go ahead.
• 43:20
  right? So, I was just lamenting that social media companies are evil, etc. I stand by that. But one interesting thing about social media, about the ability to participate online with the forums, is it does give people an opportunity to vent without violence. So I do wonder the extent to which if these people in the 60s, 70s, 80s who perpetrated acts of violence had access to just vent online and say horrible depraved things online whether they might have avoided actually doing violence if you see what I'm saying. Like I wonder if being online is kind of like a vehicle for for that or these video games or whatever. Like people say, oh video games make people violent, but I wonder sometimes if video games are actually like a release for violence. So I don't know but I think that there I think people are really like . . . a lot of people . . . Like one of the effective things about protest these days, people ask oh well what's the value of protest in this like age of internet and digital and AI? Well actually it's because people aren't expecting it so much. Is that like right there's so little in-person that when there's actually is something in person it actually has more attention than it used to and the same the same goes like I think yeah so I I think that's the value of protest.
• 44:40
  Scott - Right. And, yeah. And it's interesting because I would have argued that one of the reasons the US has had, you know, a remarkably for for a country 250 years old, we've had remarkably little political violence. And I would argue part of the reason is stuff like the freedom of speech, assembly and whatnot actually allows that to vent. I mean, one of the things people complain about American politics, everybody's screaming about everything. Well, but that keeps issues from blowing up, right? It's a release valve, right? That's interesting to see the internet in that way. We'll have to see how this works. It's going to be an interesting debate. So, um no, I've really enjoyed this, Adam. I appreciate you being out here. If somebody wants to find out more about Crowds on Demand or the . . . let me get this right because I've been mumbling this up all day . . . Transparency in Political Demonstration Act you're sponsoring. Where can they go to find this information? Adam - Crowdsodemand.com. Crowdsonddemand.com. Scott - Okay. And that will link over to the, to the transparency . . .
• 45:41
  Adam - You can follow me on Twitter, @CEOAdamSwart. I don't post that, but if you want to, if you want to support it, then uh then then let me know. Send me a DM, a DM on Twitter or something.
• 45:52
  Scott - Okay. Well, this has been really good. Thank you. I've really enjoyed the conversation. This is going to be an issue I think that's going to be continuing to come up. If you out there have a question, of course, Adam just gave you his contact information. If you want to reach Crystal and I, go ahead and shoot us an email at info@775alive.com. Until then, we'll see you around the 775. [music]