Advertising on school buses is a topic that has been in the spotlight lately, with several states considering bills to allow it and some in the industry raising concerns about it.

Perhaps most pressing for many pupil transportation officials is the possibility that ads on school buses could distract other motorists, particularly when buses are stopped to load or unload children.

The New York Association for Pupil Transportation, in a letter opposing school bus ad legislation earlier this year, said that New York has "thousands of motorists passing our school buses illegally every day. We are concerned that motorists will be even more distracted by advertisements on the school buses and we will see an increase in illegal passing."

Another concern that has been raised, including by the National Association of State Directors of Pupil Transportation Services (NASDPTS) in its recently updated position paper on school bus ads, is the potential for trouble in controlling the content of the ads.

"Supporters of advertising on school buses believe that committees should be formed to establish criteria for the appropriateness of advertising, and believe the criteria will protect them from legal action," NASDPTS wrote in its paper. "The fact of the matter is that such criteria may be challenged in court, and it is impossible for anyone to predict the likelihood of success of any legal challenge to restricting the type of advertising on school buses."

I came across a recent article that seems to support the fear of legal ramifications, although in this case it's a transit agency. 

The Port Authority of Allegheny County (Pa.) refused to run ads on its buses informing convicted felons of their voting rights, a decision that "likely will end up costing the agency more than $500,000" in legal expenses, the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review reported.

On Aug. 5, the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld an earlier ruling that by not running the ads, the port authority (which provides bus and other public transportation services) violated the First Amendment rights of the Pittsburgh League of Young Voters and the American Civil Liberties Union.

Along with its own expenses, the port authority will reportedly have to pay the plaintiffs' legal costs if it doesn't appeal further or if it does and loses.

U.S. District Judge Terrence McVerry ruled that since the port authority had run ads that offered free help to young women, poor people and housing-discrimination victims, its refusal of the ads aimed at felons was based on the message, not the type of ad.

Still, the three-judge panel in the case did note that if the port authority writes better regulations on ads and sticks to them in a "neutral and consistent manner, it may, in the future, be able to reject ads like the one at issue in this appeal."

The port authority "may" be able to reject ads like that in the future, but then again, it may still be challenged in court. Is that a risk worth taking?

—Thomas McMahon, executive editor