And more commentary from Lance Boldrey:

Interior corrected the fundamental mistake from last year’s Upper Lake letter, in which they suggested that the number of machines a state might “allow” a tribe via compacting could somehow support revenue sharing. The Department has now returned to the position articulated in a letter to Forest County Potawatomi some years ago that the ordinary elements of a compact, such as number of machines, types of games, hours of operation, etc, cannot support revenue sharing with a state. Rather, a state must confer a substantial benefit that it was not otherwise obligated to negotiate.