Just 100 large donors contributed more to statewide races in New York during last year's election cycle than the 137,000 small donors who contributed $175 or less, according to a new analysis that argues for public funding as a way to expand the depth and diversity of the political donor pool.

A report released Monday by the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University Law School argues that a public matching system would not only have increased the amount of money candidates received from small donors but also expanded the racial and economic diversity of donors. The center, which advocates for public finance systems to amplify small donors' influence, based its comparison of giving in statewide elections to contributions to New York City Council races, which offer a public financing program that multiplies the impact of small individual donations by $6 to $1.

Statewide finance reform has been a point of emphasis for Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo, who recently signed a bill closing the state's so-called "LLC loophole," that exempted limited liability corporations from regular corporate contribution limits and included public financing of elections in his 2019 budget proposal.

"Rich corporations and the wealthiest one percent have influenced our elections and drowned out the voices of ordinary New Yorkers," Cuomo said in a press release . Since 2010, Cuomo's campaign committees have raised more than $100 million, according to the Rochester Democrat & Chronicle .

"In New York State, not only do we have a massive amount of money being raised by just a few people, but a very disengaged public," says Lawrence Norden, deputy director of the Brennan Center's Democracy Program. "New York ranks at the bottom of small donor participation because there's so much big money in state politics." A robust public finance system widens the pool of candidates and allows more women and people of color to for office, he adds.

If the Empire State does expand public funding candidates, it would join 14 other states in offering some form of public financing, according to research by the National Council of State Legislatures .

In nearby Connecticut, state candidates that meet a minimum threshold of dollars raised from small contributors – no more than $100 or $250, depending on the seat – can qualify for a lump sum, subject to certain restrictions.

"It gives an opportunity for folks who are not themselves independently wealthy," says Cheri Quickmire, executive director of Common Cause in Connecticut, which advocates for public financing. The funds also free up policymakers from some of the constant fundraising that often goes hand in hand with holding office, she adds. "They don't have to go around with their hands out saying, 'Please give me money.'"

That's certainly not the case for candidates on the federal stage, where public funds in presidential races were largely irrelevant in the last election, and no similar programs exist for House or Senate candidates.

The issue remains a divisive one on Capitol Hill. House Democrats floated public financing for House races and an updated matching plan for presidential candidates in their sweeping ethics reform package, the For the People Act . The bill was, symbolically, the first to be introduced in the newly Democratic-controlled House, a less-than-subtle nod to the importance Democrats assign the issue.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, has made clear that the legislation stands no chance in the Republican-controlled Senate, blasting the idea to use tax dollars to subsidize campaign communications in an op-ed in The Washington Post.

"I don't think Americans see an urgent need for their tax dollars to be used to bankroll robocalls and attack ads, including for candidates they dislike," the Kentucky Republican said.