By using a play on Ray Bradbury’s novel about book burning as the title of his new movie, “Fahrenheit 9/11,” Michael Moore seemed to be suggesting that it is the political right in America that opposes civil liberties. Yesterday, Citizens United, a conservative group, filed a complaint against Mr. Moore with the Federal Election Commission. Citizens United argues that television commercials for Mr. Moore’s movie constitute “electioneering communication”and are therefore subject to full, and onerous, federal regulation.

To subject a filmmaker trying to promote his work to such disclosure requirements would be a clear violation of the First Amendment, even when the filmmaker is as shrill as Mr. Moore. Which is why Citizens United was one of the groups that challenged the constitutionality of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance legislation that Congress passed and that President Bush signed into law in 2002.

Those of us who opposed the campaign finance law argued at the time that it was an unconstitutional restriction on the First Amendment rights of Americans to engage in political speech and to petition for redress. Most of the American left at the time argued that the law was necessary to prevent the appearance of money corrupting the political process. Citizens United’s FEC complaint underscores the absurdity of the federal regulations. The Supreme Court ended up upholding most of the law.

We don’t doubt that the complaint has a chance of success — this is the same FEC, after all, that once launched an investigation of Reader’s Digest for advertising an issue that carried an article about Senator Edward Kennedy and Chappaquiddick.

That is the thing about laws restricting political speech. The restrictions wind up applying to left-wing filmmakers, abortion-rights groups, environmentalists, and labor unions just as much as they apply to corporate fat cats. Instead of a lively political debate, the voters get one that is artificially restrained.