While I agree that it certainly is an issue (and a HUGE issue - conflict of interest), the real issue here, in my opinion, is at it's most basic:

Whether or not we should adopt a 2MB block size increase ASAP, or not - and good, logical reasons to support each side.

I suppose I'll start.  I support a 2MB block size increase because first, the 1MB limit was simply a temporary measure put in to stop spam attacks.

Gavin addresses this issue (increasing block size while keeping spam attacks down) by retaining the SAME amount of signatures allowed per block, but expanding the block size itself.

Also, keeping it at a 1MB limit is consistently creating a backlog of transactions that are not processed in a timely manner.  Multiple times I have included recommended CORE CLIENT fees (even higher) and found myself waiting multiple hours.  This is not good for adoption as, if you can't use the service, you won't use the service.

Just a few to start us off.