Does this mean we're getting to a point where parties will refuse to settle cashflows into state coffers, but act like fiduciaries for the money until the acting reps & administrators want to allocate / purpose it?

i'm not even sure that could work. I'm trying to liken it to how other countries have many parties in the governing body, and each has to barter to get things funded/etc. Same in this model — each of 'the two parties' is really a network of PACs and NGOs, with their own access to donations/financials.

Today those groups are already deciding where to allocate based on trust / alliances. Are we headed toward a model where they more like fiduciaries, trusting a lesser amount of political hierarchy?

(all of this is aside from what Cutler did, should do, or consequences)

please, analysis only. No partisan trope responses.