I wish to prove the formula stated in wikipedia or mentionned in this question: let us denote $ c_m^{(n)}$ the coefficients arising in the expansion of the $n$-th power $\displaystyle \left( \sum_{k=0}^\infty a_k X^k \right)^{\!n} =\, \sum_{m=0}^\infty c_m^{(n)} X^m$. The claim is that
$$\begin{align} c_0^{(n)} &= (a_0)^n,\\ c_m^{(n)} &= \frac{1}{m\, a_0} \sum_{k=1}^m (kn - m+k)\, a_{k}\, c_{m-k}^{(n)}, \quad \ m \geq 1. \end{align}\tag{1}\label{1} $$
Let me first start with what seems natural but which leads to a different answer. I indeed added the $(n)$ index in $c_m^{(n)}$ because I would naively do a recurrence on $n$ by writing
$$ \begin{split} \sum_{m=0}^\infty c_m^{(n)} X^m & = \left( \sum_{k=0}^\infty a_k X^k \right)^{\!n-1} \times \left( \sum_{k=0}^\infty a_k X^k \right) = \sum_{m=0}^\infty c_m^{(n-1)} X^m \times \sum_{k=0}^\infty a_k X^k \\ &= \sum_{p=0}^\infty \left( \sum_{k=0}^p c_{p-k}^{(n-1)}\, a_k \right) X^p \end{split}$$ which gives $$ c_m^{(n)} = \sum_{k=0}^m c_{m-k}^{(n-1)}\, a_k \tag{2}\label{2}$$
For $\displaystyle n=1,\enspace c_m^{(1)} = a_m,\quad n=2,\enspace c_m^{(2)} = \sum_{k=0}^m a_{m-k}\, a_k\ .\quad$ For $ n=3$
$$ c_m^{(3)} = \sum_{j=0}^m c_{m-j}^{(2)}\, a_j = \sum_{j=0}^m \left( \sum_{k=0}^{m-j} a_{m-j-k}\,a_k \right) a_j = \sum_{j+k+l=m} a_l\, a_k\, a_j $$ It seems that the general solution is $\displaystyle c_m^{(n)} = \sum_{k_1+k_2+\cdots + k_n=m} a_{k_1}\, a_{k_2}\,\cdots\, a_{k_n} $, which is in fact just a notation, cf. also this question. In the first question above, they claim that it is possible to get a relation from the multinomial formula but that also is not clear to me: a first apparent (but in fact harmless) problem is that we do not raise a polynomial to the power $n$ but an infinite sum. Secondly, we want to regroup the answer by powers $X^m$ as opposed to a formula such as $\left(a_1\, X_1 + a_2 \, X_2 + \cdots + a_k\, X_k \right)^n$ for which we would look at the coefficient of a monomial of the form $X_{1}^{i_1}\, X_2^{i_2}\, \cdots X_n^{i_n}$
Since (\ref{1}) is a relation between $c_m^{(n)}$ and $c_p^{(n)}$ for $p<m$ but the same $n$, we should look for an argument explaining this link. (\ref{2}) made a link between $c_m^{(n)}$ and $c_p^{(n-1)}$ for $p<m$.
Maybe, maybe, maybe we could insert formula (\ref{1}) within (\ref{2}) and prove heredity...