Aww, come on mainiac. I value your contributions when you leverage information, and help me learn about a subject.
Reading into it just a little bit more right now... It doesn't look to me like there's much more evidence required than what's already out there. The structure of the Hillary Victory Fund can't really be disputed, it looks like. So what people are questioning is the motive.
In summary:
The Democrat Party in 33 participating states set up a joint fundraising thing for the general election apparently the earliest that it ever has, and tied it directly to Hillary's campaign funding. They set it up so early this time in order to take advantage of a bypass to individual campaign contribution limits introduced by a ruling in 2014, and it looks like it does this by splitting contributions to the Hillary Victory Fund between Hillary's campaign and the Democratic Party. The entire fund is operated by Hillary's campaign staff, and the accusation is that Hillary's campaign is in direct control of 33 state's largest source of campaign funds before she's won the nomination.
Wikipedia's article on this is decent. More information and less accusatory in tone.
The articles that are ripping into this are making the claim that this is easy leverage on the political careers of superdelegates, held directly in the hands of Clinton's campaign.
So please give me the perspective that all the lowest hanging information out there is not giving me on why this is not undemocratic in nature. I bet you've already read into this, and can provide perspective based on your sports fan-like knowledge of campaign history and information not being reported on the surface. Because for someone like me, who is less informed than you, but more than the average voter, this doesn't look like hum drum campaign as usual. And even if it is, I need to understand why I should be ok with it... or if the information I'm coming across is flat out wrong.