It's understandable that holders of Pennsylvania's slot machine supplier licenses would like to be reimbursed for the money they spent setting up their operations, now that they presumably won't be performing that function.

But the most they should be reimbursed is their $25,000 licensing fee. Any other start-up money they spent should be regarded as their loss — and as a potential loss deduction on their federal tax returns.

Those who hold slot machine supplier licenses made a business decision to attempt to provide a service that, in fact, never was needed. From their financial standpoint, it turned out to be a bad investment, and they should have to live with the consequences of that investment.

Employees of companies in Pennsylvania must live with the consequences of business decisions — decisions that benefit them as well as those that don't — made by their employers. In this case, the slots suppliers' market was created by the state, and now the state has changed the rules.

Last year the state General Assembly, reacting to public distaste over the initially approved requirement that Pennsylvania casinos buy their slot machines from licensed suppliers rather than directly from manufacturers, voted to eliminate that requirement.

The justification given by the legislature for eliminating the slots middlemen, in addition to the fact that the suppliers weren't needed, was that most licenses were awarded to the politically connected.

From the time the slots distributorships requirement was proposed in the initial slot machine gambling legislation, many state residents were wary of it. Residents were suspicious that the distributorships would become primarily an avenue for political paybacks, rather than serving any real, useful purpose.

In at least some cases, the awarding of supplier licenses has confirmed that suspicion.

It is generally less costly to buy something directly from a manufacturer than when layers of distribution are added between the manufacturer and ultimate buyer. That presumably holds true for slot machines.

Right-thinking people, regardless of whether they approve of casino gambling, should acknowledge the right of casinos to buy slot machines from whatever source they choose, at the best price available to them.

That then rightly undermines what former Pittsburgh City Councilman Sala Udin told state lawmakers on April 4.

Udin, who is president of Gaming Ventures LLC, which was awarded a slots distributorship license, wants the state to reimburse his company $125,000 in state fees, legal fees and other start-up costs — and repay hundreds of thousands of dollars to other suppliers who also were victimized by state lawmakers' decision to eliminate the distributorships requirement.

"We acted on good faith. We played by all the rules. We invested in the good faith of the legislature," Udin said. However, he told the House Gaming Oversight Committee, the 2006 gambling reform law reduced the "value of our license to zero."

Committee lawmakers seemed supportive of giving something back to the 16 companies with supplier licenses, possibly the $25,000 licensing fee. But that should be the extent of the refund.

Rep. Kerry Benninghoff, R-Centre, said any reimbursement should be derived from gambling profits. Not so.

The right source for the money is the General Assembly's closely guarded, multimillion-dollar surplus account, since it was the legislature that approved this ill-advised idea in the first place.

Udin said he was "exploring what the legal possibilities might be" in regard to seeking reimbursement for his company's expenses; he is free to pursue such a course of action.

But lawmakers should not cave in to the threat of a lawsuit by reimbursing money the distributorship companies freely chose to spend in what turned out to be a bad business decision.

Casinos are all about gambling and, unfortunately for them, the 16 licensed distributorships lost big time on what they considered a safe bet to make big profits.