OK -- gonna' get legalistic for a minute --

If the airport authority is providing the bins, they are free to put anything on them they want -- even "Kip Hawley is an idiot!" This would be true if the bins were placed there as a courtesy and convenience item, much like baggage trolleys. However, the TSA would have us believe that the bins are "mandatory" for shoes and laptops, which removes them from the "nice to have category."

If the government is providing them to us with appropriated funds (i.e. tax dollars), the contractor providing the bins should have asked the government (i.e.: TSA) for permission to place ads on the bins. Of course, I would be smoking something if I believed this actually happened.

If the government bought the bins, advertising in theory would be no worse than a "Boeing" logo on the side of a B-52 or a "Lockheed-Martin" logo on the side of an Atlas-V used for a government satellite launch. It would be perfectly acceptable for the bin manufacturer to display their logo on the bin.

Advertising having nothing at all to do with the product manufacturer, I believe, presents some problems. First of all, by virtue of the bins being used at a government checkpoint for mandatory screening purposes, the TSA and the US Government are, in fact, endorsing the product that's being advertised on the bin. Second, the presence of advertising sends a perception of impropriety. Third, what's to prevent a competitor to the advertiser from suing the government, claiming they didn't have the opportunity to compete for advertising space on bins?

If I were an FSD, the negative perceptions created by all this would cause me to reject a request to put advertising on checkpoint bins. I haven't seen the bins with ads, but I would not want to even send the perception that the TSA endorsed Maxim, beer, Coke, cigarettes, junk food, condoms, or whatever else was on those bins. Would I expect an FSD to have these thoughts for even a nanosecond? Of course not.