Democratic congressional candidate Darcy Burner will not make any solo speaking appearances if she is being taped by a camerman from the state Republican Party. Burner's campaign workers recently ordered the camera off, claiming a state law requires a subject's permission to be taped. When that didn't work — as you can see in this video — the camera's view was been blocked.

Burner campaign spokeswoman Jaime Smith said:

If Congressman Reichert were to appear at these forums, we are fine with having anyone who wants to film the event do so. But when the Republicans are trying to get footage of Darcy for the sole purpose of using the footage in misleading and blatantly false advertising, we've asked that this filming not take place. It is our right to ask, and their decision whether to film.

The video comes from a forum last Thursday in front of the Alliance for People with Disabilities at Seattle Center, said state Republican Party spokeswoman Carrie Shaw. The Republican's video camera was also shut down at a Sept. 28 event at Beaver Lake Lodge in Sammamish, she said.

"A man indentifying himself as a Burner staffer told our staffer that it was illegal for him to be filming Darcy without her permission and that state law prohibited that and he told him to shut down the camera. It's a form of intimidation."

Republicans say they looked and could find no state law that would prohibit the video and the staffer was sent back with his camera to the Seattle Center event.

"He was standing his ground," Shaw said.

Smith said that a campaign staffer may have mentioned there was a state law against video taping someone without permission, adding,

"As we understand it, there are some tough laws in the state regarding taping or recording individuals in public spaces."

She did not respond to a question about a specific citation for that law. I don't find one, though there are laws against bootlegging of concerts, voyeurism and eavesdropping.

(UPDATE: Smith says the statute is RCW 9.73.030 (1) (b). It says:

Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, it shall be unlawful for any individual, partnership, corporation, association, or the state of Washington, its agencies, and political subdivisions to intercept, or record any:

...

(b) Private conversation, by any device electronic or otherwise designed to record or transmit such conversation regardless how the device is powered or actuated without first obtaining the consent of all the persons engaged in the conversation.

I'm not a lawyer. (Boy, am I not a lawyer.) But I'm not sure that forums with political candidates count as private conversations. Anybody have any expertise on this?)

This is an issue between incumbents and challengers. Republican Mike McGavick has been followed around the state by a Democratic party staffer with a camera. He gets turned away at private events, like a McGavick press conference, but has taped most all of McGavick's public appearances. I suppose the challenger is out in public more often, and more likely to make a mistake, so the party in power wants it all on film.