A LEGISLATIVE SOLUTION
A Simple Fix to End the Monopoly
IMPORTANT WARNING: I’m an intelligent guy. Very concerned about the BSA. But I’m not a lawyer.
THE PROBLEM CONGRESS CREATED
In 1916, Congress granted BSA exclusive rights over scouting terminology through 36 U.S.C. § 30905. In 1950, Congress granted Girl Scouts identical rights through 36 U.S.C. § 80305. These monopolies prevent competitors from emerging and deny families access to alternatives.
Only Congress can fix what Congress created.
A SOLUTION: YOUTH ORGANIZATION COMPETITION ACT
What It Is Designed to Do
Removes the monopoly grant from 36 U.S.C. § 30905, allowing organizations to use common descriptive words like “scout” and “scouting.”
Preserves full trademark protection under the Lanham Act, the same protection available to every successful American brand.
Maintains BSA’s federal charter and corporate status. Nothing changes except the monopoly power.
Protects BSA’s identity: exclusive rights to “Boy Scouts of America,” all logos, emblems, and distinctive marks remain protected by trademark law.
What Changes
Before:
- BSA holds monopoly over scouting terminology
- Other organizations cannot accurately describe programs
- Families have limited choices
- No competitive pressure to serve families better
After:
- BSA retains trademark protection (name, logos, marks)
- Organizations can use common descriptive words
- Families access diverse approaches
- Competition drives quality and innovation
Real-World Example
A new organization teaching traditional outdoor skills and youth leadership could call itself “Mountain Valley Scouts” without legal threat. Families would understand what the program offers. BSA would keep exclusive rights to “Boy Scouts of America” and its trademarks. No confusion would result. Families would know these are different organizations, just as they distinguish between Ford and Chevrolet.
TRADEMARK PROTECTION IS SUFFICIENT
BSA doesn’t need a monopoly. Every successful American brand competes with trademark protection alone:
BSA keeps:
- Exclusive right to the name “Boy Scouts of America”
- Protection for logos, emblems, distinctive badges
- Legal remedies against consumer confusion
- Terms with acquired distinctiveness (“Eagle Scout”)
- All protections available to Coca-Cola, Nike, and McDonald’s
BSA loses:
- Power to prevent competitors from using common words (Scout, Scouter, Scouting, Second Class Scout, First Class Scout)
- Monopoly over international terminology (created in UK, 1907)
- Government advantage no other youth organization has
This is how markets work. Organizations compete on merit and protect brands through trademark law, not congressional monopolies.
GIRL SCOUTS TOO
Girl Scouts has an identical monopoly under 36 U.S.C. § 80305. The same problems exist. Congress should consider similar amendments to ensure consistency and promote competition for all youth.
The BSA-Girl Scouts lawsuit demonstrates the failure: two monopoly holders fighting in federal court over territory. The monopoly system creates conflicts rather than resolving them.
WHY LEGISLATION IS NECESSARY
Market solutions don’t work when monopolies exist
- Organizations can’t enter using accurate terminology
- Families can’t access alternatives that don’t exist
- No competitive pressure drives improvement
Court challenges face barriers
- Congressional charters require congressional fixes
- Litigation is expensive and uncertain
- Even one success doesn’t help other organizations
- Piecemeal challenges don’t create systematic change
Only Congress can end monopolies that it created.
MY ROLE
I’m not here to control this process. I’m here to start it.
I’ve identified a problem. I’ve proposed one solution. I support any approach that allows competition while preserving legitimate protections.
Other legislative approaches might include:
- Phased implementation with transition periods
- Different language preserving more protections
- Amendments addressing multiple organizations simultaneously
- Alternative mechanisms ensuring competition
I’m even open to non-legislative solutions:
- BSA voluntarily relinquishing monopoly rights
- BSA licensing terminology to competitors
- BSA committing not to enforce against good-faith competitors
I doubt BSA will volunteer to end its advantage. But if they surprise me and embrace competition, I’ll applaud that outcome.
DOWNLOAD THE DRAFT BILL
DRAFT LEGISLATION – REQUIRES LEGAL REVIEW
This bill was developed through legal research and analysis of existing Title 36 law, with assistance from AI tools to ensure proper legislative format and structure. I am not an attorney. This draft is intended as a starting point for discussion and must be reviewed by legislative counsel before introduction. Any legislator, organization, or citizen using this language does so with the understanding that it has not been vetted by legal experts specializing in congressional charter law.
Download: Youth Organization Competition Act (PDF)
Download: Youth Organization Competition Act (DOCX)
This is only a proposed starting point, not an ending point. Legal experts, legislators, and stakeholders will improve it. I welcome that process.
COMMON CONCERNS
“This will confuse families about which organization is which.”
Trademark law prevents confusion. BSA retains full protection against misleading names, logos, or marketing. What changes is BSA’s power to prevent accurate descriptive words where no confusion exists.
“BSA earned this through 110 years of service.”
BSA’s service continues. The organization keeps its federal charter, trademarks, and programs. It loses monopoly power over common words, a power no organization should have. BSA’s value comes from its reputation and quality, not from a government monopoly.
“This punishes success.”
This removes an anti-competitive barrier. BSA competes successfully against 4-H, Boys & Girls Clubs, and others without monopoly power over their terminology. Strong organizations compete and win through merit.
“What about BSA’s brand investment?”
BSA’s brand remains protected. Exactly like every other successful American brand. Coca-Cola doesn’t need a monopoly over “cola.” Nike doesn’t need a monopoly over “athletic shoes.” Quality brands succeed through service, not monopoly.
“This could hurt BSA financially.”
Competition might pressure BSA to improve services or adapt programs, which is exactly how markets work everywhere else. That pressure serves families. If BSA provides value, families will choose it. If alternatives serve some families better, those families deserve choices.
THE PATH FORWARD
What happens next depends on citizens who care about youth programs.
- Build Support — Share this with others who care about Scouting, youth development, or competition
- Contact Representatives — Tell your Senators and Representative you support ending the monopoly
- Join the Conversation — Engage with others, share perspectives, listen
- Stay Involved — Participate as legislation develops
I’m starting a conversation, not asking for immediate passage of specific language. The solution might evolve. What matters is allowing families to have choices.