WASHINGTON — A conservative group asked federal election officials yesterday to investigate whether television ads for director Michael Moore's anti-Bush documentary "Fahrenheit 9/11" violate campaign-finance law regulating when commercials may feature a presidential candidate.

The Federal Election Commission might take months to issue a ruling on the complaint, making it unlikely the commission would act in time to affect the film's ad campaign. The two-hour movie, which depicts President Bush as lazy and oblivious to warnings in summer 2001 that al-Qaida was poised to strike, opens nationwide today.

The group Citizens United contended that commercials for "Fahrenheit 9/11" fall under federal campaign-finance law. Regulations prohibit the use of corporate money to air ads identifying a presidential candidate in the 30 days before his party's nominating convention and the 60 days before the Nov. 2 election.

Bush will be nominated by the GOP during its New York convention Aug. 30-Sept. 2. Citizens United argued that "Fahrenheit 9/11" ads that identify Bush and are paid for with corporate money should be banned after July 31.

Moore called the complaint "a blatant attempt on the part of a right-wing, Republican-sponsored group to stop people from seeing my movie." He said he would fight the complaint, and members of the Congressional Black Caucus appearing with him at a news conference near the Capitol promised to help.

"It's a violation of my First Amendment rights that I cannot advertise my movie. It's a movie," Moore said. "I have not publicly endorsed John Kerry. I am an independent, I am not a member of the Democratic Party."

An exemption to the law frees a wide array of media organizations from the ban on the use of corporate money for ads identifying federal candidates close to elections. Moore, an Oscar-winning filmmaker, and the film might be covered by the media exemption.

Citizens United contends that "Fahrenheit 9/11" is propaganda and doesn't qualify for the media exemption. It is among conservative groups that have tried to mobilize the public against the film, arguing that Moore's portrayal of the Bush administration is inaccurate.

The group's complaint names Moore; companies involved in the film's marketing and distribution, including Lions Gate Entertainment Corp., Cablevision Systems Corp., Viacom International; and brothers Harvey and Bob Weinstein, executives at the film company Miramax who formed a separate company to find a way to distribute Moore's film.

The complaint also contends that because Lions Gate is foreign-owned, the ads are subject to a ban on the use of foreign money for ads identifying presidential candidates close to elections.

"Fahrenheit 9/11" won the top honor at last month's Cannes Film Festival. Moore and his distributors lost their appeal this week to lower its rating from R to PG-13.

The FEC issued a decision yesterday on ads involving another film, but commissioners said it didn't address Moore or ads promoting "Fahrenheit 9/11." In that ruling, the FEC told an Arizona man he couldn't use corporate money to run ads promoting his documentary film and identifying Bush and congressional candidates close to the election.

David Hardy, president of the Bill of Rights Educational Foundation in Tucson, Ariz., had asked the commission for its advice on whether he could use foundation money for the ads. Hardy didn't ask the commission whether his ads would qualify for the media exemption.

Earlier this week, three campaign-finance watchdog groups filed an FEC complaint charging that a pro-Democratic group that criticizes President Bush in its fund-raising letters is breaking the law in the types of contributions it uses to finance the mailings.

The three groups said America Coming Together should be using limited "hard money" donations, not unlimited contributions, to pay for the solicitations. The groups — Democracy 21, the Center for Responsive Politics and the Campaign Legal Center — filed the complaint on June 22.

ACT has financed the mailings — possibly up to $1 million worth through March — with soft money, the groups say. Such unlimited donations can come from any source, including unions and corporations, but aren't supposed to be used for federal election activities.

"When Election Day is over, we will have defeated George W. Bush and elected progressive candidates all across the nation," ACT told prospective donors in one recent fund-raising letter. "The extraordinary effort we're undertaking is in response to the extraordinary damage Bush and his allies do, on a daily basis, to values we believe in and to people we care about."

The mailing also notes ACT's desire to defeat Republican members of Congress and GOP lawmakers at the state and local levels.

The commission is unlikely to act on the complaint before Election Day; the FEC often takes years to resolve complaints.

ACT spokesman Jim Jordan said the organization had done nothing improper: "It is, we believe, completely without merit," Jordan said of the complaint.

The watchdog groups contend that because no state and local candidates are named, and Bush, a federal candidate, is the only person on the ballot who is, such solicitations must be funded with the harder-to-raise hard money.

ACT was formed after the campaign-finance law barring the national Democratic and Republican parties from raising soft money took effect in November 2002. It is focused on pro-Democratic get-out-the-vote activities in presidential battleground states, efforts the Democratic Party had used soft money to finance.

ACT is allowed to cover some costs using a mix of hard and soft money. The group paid for roughly 98% of its expenses with soft money through March and should be using more hard money, the complaint says.

The complaint isn't the first against ACT. The Bush campaign and Republican National Committee filed one with the FEC in March accusing ACT and other anti-Bush groups of illegally coordinating their activities with Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry's campaign. The Kerry campaign and the groups say they've done nothing wrong.