Expanding a bit upon the post immediately below this one. An item quoted there contained the paragraph,
On Jan. 11, Peardon texted Braastad, asking who Look's boss is, so she could address her concerns about his Facebook post. Braastad replied that Look answers to voters, and suggested Peardon contact him with her concerns. She also asked for Peardon's name, which Peardon declined to provide.
Italics added. The post below was updated, with information that the complainant, anonymous at the time but later identified in Strib reporting had a criminal history which might or might not be relevant to credibility.
There exists a WordPress blog, purportedly being published from within the Anoka County Board district Matt Look represents.
Get a flavor, the current homepage, earlier posts, here and here.
Whether support of this ANONYMOUS posting person is a help or hindrance to Matt Look's political career is an uncertainty; as is the identity of the posting person.
HOW CREDIBLE IS THIS OUTLET? HOW MORE OR LESS CREDIBLE WOULD IT BE IF THE PUBLISHER PUT HER/HIS NAME TO IT?
This Crabgrass post is not posing an answer. Only posing a question.
Arguably sensible reasons for anonymous posting can exist, e.g., fear of job loss if not posting anonymously; or fear of retributive political hurt.
Freedom of anonymous speech, particularly political speech, has been before the Supreme Court in the context of posting/publishing person(s) will and choice to remain anonymous. In the context of election brochure and or sign erection related to election campaigning speech, see, e.g., McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm'n, 514 US 334 (1995).
The right to un-anonymously post things on the internet is a current issue, with Parler closed and Trump accounts closed by internet portal operations.
The right to voice thoughts, however biased, dumb or puerile, should be respected, but readers must ask, if I know the person's name and/or history, can I better assess credibility? Surely so, but often enough, e.g., the Reflections in Ramsey example, a view of credibility is often suitably determinable from the content of what is posted, itself, without knowing authorship.
What the Reflections in Ramsey blogging also shows is a good hint of the background from which the Strib Feb. 3 and Feb. 4 stories discussed in the post below this one originate.
Polarized opinion, anonymously posted IS protected speech. Whether it is at all credible to reasonable people is another separate question.
For readers outside of having personal knowledge of the immediate situation Strib reported. in its local historical and political context, this present Crabgrass post might illuminate a bit of context. That is the intent.
Should you wonder whether Matt Look or any other local politician embraces or renounces things posted via that anonymous blog; you have the right to ask. That right is part of the full penumbra encompassed by the Constitutional right to "free speech."
If you are a voter in Anoka County within any of the Board districts wondering who among candidates embraces or opposes the things posted on any blog or other news or opinion outlet, ask. It is that simple, and any office seeker declining a response can be judged by that as well as if you attain an affirmative yes or no.
Citizens do have rights, especially the right to ask. Career politicians in turn have the right to respond, or not.
If whether a candidate for office supports or disagrees with Trump's assertion the election was stolen from him by voter fraud IS an important question to you in casting a ballot, before election day ASK.
If getting stiffed or a song and dance instead of a clean answer, weigh that in choosing. It is a clear tight question deserving a terse and informative - dissembling free - answer.
_________UPDATE________
Taking another context from today's Strib reporting, another obvious possible area to ask politicians exists. If you care about it enough to ask, the person questioned should care enough about constituents to honestly answer. And credibilty assessment, which is perhaps more subjective than objective, can hinge upon whether an evasive or direct and honest answer is forthcoming. Evasion and declining to reply are opposites to a forthright quick understandable and responsive reply. As to evasion, note how one Justice commented on a porn-speech case, "I know it when I see it."