Just read the posting on corporate donations to archaeological sites
and have several comments.
 
From 1981 to 1989 I ran a project in northern New Jersey which
focused on a site from the American Revolution.  The vehicle for the
work was a nonprofit set up locally.  Although we had links to local
universities such as Rutgers and ran field schools through them, the
nonprofit was esentially autonomous.  ALL of the funding for that
project was derived from corporations and foundations. Of the over
$400,000 raised, three quarters came from corporations.
 
Our rationale for targeting businesses and foundations was twofold:
we felt that corporations were under-utilized by archaeology and
would therefore be more liable to give; and for a small nonprofit,
the paperwork and administrative support required for corporate
donations was far smaller than that required for federal or state
grants.  Most corporations (and foundations) wanted a short proposal
and kept paperwork to a minimum.  Reporting during and after the
grant period was also minimal.  Most funds were not earmarked for
specific research or tasks, but could be used as needed.
 
Some of the success of our fundraising efforts was due to our
location.  A significant number of corporate headquarters were
located in our area.  We found it useful to involve their employees
in our work as volunteers and tried to portray ourselves as
contributing to the general historical and cultural environment which
made the area an attractive place to live.  Whether or not they
bought the arguments is hard to judge, but they did put up a lot of
money.
 
Heavy residential development in the area made developers
a prime target for funding, and new businesses moving in behind the
development (especially banks) were good targets.  At least one bank
actually used our project in its ads, and emphasized the historic
quality of the region to potential home-buyers (read mortgage
buyers and new accounts).
 
Despite what I think was a pretty good success with corporations,
there are some formidable obstacles to doing it successfully.  First,
relatively few corporations actually give.  I don't have current
figures, but out of about 2.3 million corporations in the US during
1988, only 35% gave to tax-exempt groups.  Out of the allowable 10%
of pre-tax profits whioch could be given in 1988, only 1.91% was
actually contributed.  I don't what the figures are now, but my
sense is that giving has actaully been dropping.  This means that
networking and using contacts within the company are essential.
 
Aside from that, companies seem most interested in "investing"
rather than "giving."  They don't seem to respond very well to hard
luck stories, and they're most interested in research or activities
which they think may increase profits, which use their products, or
which in some way benefit their employees.  This last area is
generally the one where archaeology can make the greatest headway,
using the appeal of the field and the potential PR value.  We tried
to hit those elements for all we were worth, and even arranged
special tours and reenactments to coincide with the major openings
for developers.  I doubt that it sold many houses, but the developers
perceived a value and contributed significantly as a result.
 
I still think that corporate sources are under utilized for funding.
It does require a lot of schmoozing, a lot of contacts, and an
understanding that you're going to be turned down fairly frequently.
Nevertheless, it can sometimes be very productive.