An editorial in the Tampa Tribune takes Florida's legislature to task for failing to approve the revised compact negotiated between the Seminoles and Gov. Charlie Crist.  And rightly so -- as we've said numerous times, Florida's continued obstructionism flies in the face of IGRA's requirements and Congress's intent, not to mention tribal sovereignty and respectful government-to-government relations.

But it seems to always be about money, rather than legal duties, mutual respect, or even what's right.

The editorial points out that Florida's stance is undermined by state law permitting legalized gambling, including slots, in the state.  This is certainly so under IGRA's requirements.  But the editorial characterizes state law as a "slippery slope" toward the certainty of expanded gambling in Florida, one way or another.  So, says the editorial, Gov. Crist "is morally justified in trying to get the most money for taxpayers out of the state's weak bargaining position."  Really?

Most readers, we're sure, will read "morally justified" in the context of the morality or desirability of expanded gambling.  But we read it in the context of tribal-state relations, and the long-term health and stability of tribal communities in Florida and across the country.  Quite a different prism.

As the editorial concludes, "the best way to deal with the gambling vice is to limit it to existing casinos and tax it."  Again, just to be clear, the state cannot tax a tribe's gaming operation under IGRA.  (Yes, we know -- not everyone buys into the Interior Secretary's questionable approach that revenue sharing is not a tax -- but our point here is that tribal rights aren't even part of the debate.)  And it's not just IGRA that prohibits state taxation -- it's fundamental legal and moral concepts of tribal sovereignty.

Read the Tampa Tribune editorial here.